A coalition of 22 states has urged a federal court in Massachusetts to maintain a nationwide injunction against President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship. The states argue that only a comprehensive, nationwide block can fully address the potential harms posed by the order.
President Trump’s executive order, signed on January 20, 2025, seeks to deny U.S. citizenship to children born on or after July 27, 2025, if their parents are undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. This move challenges the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil.
In response, multiple lawsuits have been filed across the country. Notably, a federal judge in New Hampshire, Joseph Laplante, issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on July 10, 2025, blocking the enforcement of the executive order. Judge Laplante certified a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all children born in the U.S. after February 20, 2025, who could be affected by the policy. He emphasized that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on constitutional grounds and would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.
Similarly, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland indicated her intention to issue a nationwide injunction against the executive order, pending approval from an appeals court. Judge Boardman highlighted that an early ruling would support judicial efficiency by allowing broader evaluation of the injunction’s merits.
These judicial actions come in the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. The Court’s ruling restricts such injunctions to individual plaintiffs, potentially allowing the executive order to be enforced in states not involved in the lawsuits. However, the Court’s decision also preserved the possibility of broader relief through class-action lawsuits, as demonstrated in Judge Laplante’s ruling.
The coalition of states contends that a piecemeal approach would lead to inconsistent application of citizenship rights across the country, undermining the uniformity essential to the nation’s legal framework. They assert that a nationwide injunction is necessary to prevent the executive order from causing widespread harm and confusion.
As the legal battles continue, the future of birthright citizenship in the United States remains uncertain. The courts’ decisions in the coming months will be pivotal in determining whether the executive order will take effect or be permanently blocked.