New Class Action Lawsuit Filed After Supreme Court Decision

Shortly after the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a significant win, a group of liberal legal organizations launched a new class action lawsuit in federal court in New Hampshire. The lawsuit challenges an executive order from January that redefines the criteria for U.S. citizenship at birth.

The judge’s ruling, which was decided by a 6-3 vote, raises questions about how it relates to the birthright citizenship order central to the case. The lawsuit claims that the executive order violates the Constitution by denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are not citizens or legal residents, especially if they are in the country illegally or temporarily.

This case was initiated by several ACLU branches, including those from New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts, along with other advocacy groups. They aim to represent children born under the new executive order and their families.

Concerns Over Impacts of Reversing Citizenship Rights

Defenders warn that reversing birthright citizenship would lead to severe negative consequences. This isn’t the first legal challenge against the policy; a previous lawsuit was filed by the same coalition in January 2025. That case is still pending with oral arguments set for August 1st.

The Supreme Court ruling clarified that lower courts could no longer block federal policies nationwide unless it’s absolutely necessary to provide complete relief for the plaintiffs. While the legality of Trump’s birthright citizenship order remains undecided, this ruling allows it to be put into effect in some areas while the legal challenges unfold. The court has given lower courts 30 days to review the existing ruling.

“We’re not addressing whether the executive order breaches the Citizenship Clause or the Nationality Act,” wrote Judge Amy Coney Barrett in the majority opinion. “The focus here is on remedying whether federal courts have the power to issue universal injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789.”

“Such an injunction could only be warranted as a fair exercise of power; however, Congress didn’t grant that authority to federal courts,” she added.

Supreme Court Evaluates Citizenship Issues

In her dissent, Judge Sonia Sotomayor suggested that plaintiffs could seek class actions as an alternative approach. She emphasized the need for swift legal action regarding the challenges to citizenship policies deemed illegal and harmful.

The ACLU’s lawsuit characterizes birthright citizenship as a fundamental American promise, arguing that the executive order jeopardizes this principle and risks creating a “permanent, multi-generational subclass” of children.

“The Supreme Court decision didn’t imply that this isn’t happening. We’re fighting to protect the citizenship rights of every child,” stated Cody Woffsey, deputy director of the ACLU’s immigration rights project and lead counsel on the case.

Concerns Over Constitutional Integrity

Devon Chaffey, executive director of the ACLU in New Hampshire, emphasized that the executive order conflicts with the Constitution and the nation’s values. “We must not decide which politicians determine citizenship for those born in our country,” he remarked.

The lawsuit leans on the 14th Amendment, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens,” citing a significant Supreme Court case from 1898 that reaffirmed this notion.

The plaintiffs include individuals from countries like Honduras, Taiwan, and Brazil. One mother from New Hampshire is particularly anxious about her upcoming child possibly being denied citizenship despite being born in the U.S.

The case is officially titled Barbara et al. v. Trump et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

“Trump’s order contradicts our Constitution and risks creating a subclass of people born in America who lack full rights,” said Sangyob Kim of the ACLU in New Hampshire.

Administration’s Response

In response to the ruling, White House spokesperson Liz Houston remarked that the decision showcases a rejection of what she called “weaponized law” and views it as a victory for President Trump’s constitutional authority.

“The Trump administration remains committed to ensuring the safety of America and upholding our borders,” she added.