Birthright Citizenship Class Action Lawsuits: Barbara and CASA

The birthright citizenship class action lawsuits are two certified federal class actions — Barbara v. Trump in New Hampshire and CASA v. Trump in Maryland — brought on behalf of babies born in the United States who would lose automatic citizenship under President Trump’s January 2025 executive order. Both courts certified nationwide classes of affected children, issued preliminary injunctions blocking the order, and the constitutional question is now before the Supreme Court, which heard argument on April 1, 2026 and is expected to rule by early July 2026. The order has never taken effect.¹

What the Executive Order Would Do

Executive Order 14160, signed January 20, 2025, directed federal agencies to stop recognizing birthright citizenship for children born in the United States after February 19, 2025, in two situations: where the mother was unlawfully present at the time of birth, or where the mother’s presence was lawful but temporary (such as a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.² The administration’s theory is that children of these parents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The class actions exist because that group of babies — everyone the order targets — is exactly who the plaintiffs sought to protect once the ordinary tool for nationwide protection was taken off the table.

Why Class Actions Became the Vehicle

Three federal district courts initially blocked the order using universal injunctions that protected everyone in the country, not just the named plaintiffs. On June 27, 2025, in Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts” and granted a partial stay of the earlier orders to the extent they went beyond relief for the named plaintiffs.³

The Court did not rule on whether the executive order itself was constitutional. And Justice Barrett’s majority opinion left a clear alternative path: if a court properly certifies a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a class-wide injunction can still deliver nationwide protection.³ Challengers took that path within hours.

Barbara v. Trump

Also on June 27, 2025, the ACLU, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, the Legal Defense Fund, the Asian Law Caucus, and the Democracy Defenders Fund filed Barbara v. Trump in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.¹ The suit was brought on behalf of three families using pseudonyms:

“Barbara,” an asylum applicant from Honduras living in New Hampshire.
“Susan,” a student visa holder from Taiwan living in Utah, mother of “Sarah.”
“Mark,” a Brazilian citizen living in Florida, parent of “Matthew.”⁴

On July 10, 2025, Judge Joseph Laplante provisionally certified a nationwide class and issued a preliminary injunction. The class covers all children born in the United States on or after February 19, 2025 whose mothers were either unlawfully present or lawfully but temporarily present, and whose fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.¹

On the merits, Judge Laplante found a “strong likelihood of success,” writing that the order “flouts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment,” conflicts with the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, and “runs counter to our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth.”¹ He called losing citizenship “irreparable harm,” describing American citizenship as “the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”⁴

CASA v. Trump

The CASA plaintiffs in Maryland, represented by the Georgetown Law Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, moved to certify a class in their existing case before Judge Deborah Boardman on the same day the Supreme Court issued the CASA ruling.⁵ The Trump administration opposed certification, arguing it was an “end run around” the Supreme Court’s ruling and that the plaintiffs’ varying immigration statuses defeated Rule 23’s commonality and typicality requirements.⁶

On August 7, 2025, Judge Boardman granted class certification and issued a class-wide preliminary injunction. She defined the class as “all children born in the United States to noncitizen parents covered by Executive Order 14,160” — the same set of babies covered in the New Hampshire case.⁷ Judge Boardman found numerosity “easily met,” pointing to the government’s own acknowledgment that the order could affect roughly 255,000 babies per year.⁸

She rejected the government’s argument that varying parental circumstances defeated commonality, finding that the core constitutional question — whether the order violates the Fourteenth Amendment — “applies uniformly to all children regardless of their parents’ specific status.” She also cited Wong Kim Ark for the proposition that “the domicile of the parents of a child born in the United States is irrelevant to whether that child is entitled to U.S. citizenship.”⁸

Who Is Covered — and Who Isn’t

Both certified classes cover children only. A baby born in the United States on or after February 19, 2025 falls within the class if the mother was unlawfully present, or was lawfully but temporarily present (visas, DACA, TPS, parole, and similar statuses), and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The classes are nationwide.⁷

Parents were not certified as class members in either case. In Barbara, Judge Laplante found that parents’ injuries were “factually and legally diverse” and did not satisfy Rule 23’s commonality and typicality requirements.¹ The Maryland court reached the same result.⁸ Parents are still protected in practice because the injunctions bar the government from enforcing the order against their children, but they are not themselves plaintiffs in these class actions.

The Constitutional Question Before the Supreme Court

The dispute turns on the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, which grants citizenship to all persons “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Court held that a child born in the United States to parents of Chinese descent — parents who were themselves ineligible for naturalization — was a citizen, and that the amendment “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory.”⁹

The Trump administration argues that “subject to the jurisdiction” requires “direct and immediate allegiance” and that children of undocumented or temporarily present parents do not qualify because their parents cannot establish lawful domicile.⁹ Challengers argue that “jurisdiction” means being subject to U.S. laws while present on U.S. soil, and that undocumented immigrants plainly meet that standard.¹⁰

The Supreme Court Case

On December 5, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment in Trump v. Barbara, bypassing the First Circuit to take the constitutional question directly.¹¹ Oral arguments took place April 1, 2026. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued for the government; ACLU national legal director Cecillia Wang argued for the challengers.¹²

Several justices appeared skeptical of the government’s position at argument. Chief Justice Roberts said “it’s a new world” but “it’s the same Constitution.” Justice Kagan pressed Sauer on where the amendment’s text mentions “allegiance” or “domicile,” calling the government’s theory “revisionist.” Justice Gorsuch noted that the text focuses on the child, not the parents, and described the absence of any discussion of domicile in the drafting debates as “striking.” Justice Kavanaugh pointed out that Congress re-enacted the “subject to the jurisdiction” language in 1940 and 1952 despite Wong Kim Ark. Justice Jackson raised concerns that the government’s reading could allow Congress to strip citizenship by redefining who counts as “lawfully domiciled.”¹³ Legal observers characterized the outlook after argument as “cautiously optimistic” for the challengers.¹⁴

A decision is expected by late June or early July 2026.

What This Means for Families Right Now

Because the class-action injunctions have been in place since before the order’s February 19, 2025 effective date, no child has been denied citizenship under Executive Order 14160. Federal agencies have not implemented the screening procedures they drafted, and every baby born in the United States continues to be recognized as a citizen regardless of the parents’ immigration status.¹⁵¹⁶

Advocacy organizations have documented a “chilling effect” even so. Some schools introduced policies asking students to register immigration status, and some teachers reported that students stopped attending out of fear tied to the order and broader immigration enforcement.¹⁷

If the Supreme Court were to uphold the order, only children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, asylee, or refugee would receive automatic citizenship. Children whose parents both hold statuses such as DACA, H-1B, U or T visas, or parole would not be recognized as citizens at birth, potentially losing access to Social Security numbers, U.S. passports, and federal programs including CHIP, SNAP, and Medicaid. Estimates suggest parents in that situation could face roughly $600 in government fees and $600 to $1,000 in legal fees to establish a child’s citizenship status.¹⁸

Until the Court rules, the class-action injunctions in Barbara and CASA continue to protect every baby the order would otherwise cover.

1
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Barbara v. Trump
2
The White House. Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship
3
Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. CASA, Inc.
4
Maine Morning Star. NH Judge Blocks Trump Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship, Grants Class-Action Status
5
Justice Action Center Litigation Tracker. CASA v. Trump (District Court)
6
Maryland Matters. Government Says Class-Action Certification in Birthright Citizenship Case Improper
7
Georgetown Law ICAP. CASA v. Trump Class-Wide Injunction Opinion
8
Thompson Coburn. CASA v. Trump Order Granting Class Certification
9
SCOTUSblog. The Key Arguments in the Birthright Citizenship Case
10
Harvard Law School. Can Birthright Citizenship Be Changed?
11
ACLU of New Hampshire. Barbara v. Donald J. Trump
12
ACLU. Supreme Court Arguments Wrap in Landmark Challenge to Trump Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
13
SCOTUSblog. Birthright Citizenship Oral Argument Highlights
14
SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Appears Likely to Side Against Trump on Birthright Citizenship
15
Social Security Administration. SSA Guidance Document – EO 14160
16
ASAP Together. Protecting Birthright Citizenship
17
Stop AAPI Hate. Birthright Citizenship Executive Order FAQ
18
Asian Law Caucus. Know Your Rights: Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order