NewYou can listen to Fox News articles now!
A coalition of free legal groups filed a new class action lawsuit in the federal court of New Hampshire after the Supreme Court passed a national injunction on Friday by ruling the lower courts. Its goal President Donald TrumpThe January executive order redefines who qualifies for U.S. citizenship at birth.
While the Justice’s 6-3 ruling left the question of how the ruling would apply to the birthright citizen order at the heart of the case, Friday’s Litigation allegations management Violate the Constitution Citizenship of children born on U.S. soil is rejected if their mother is present illegally or temporarily in the country and their father is not a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident.
The case is American Civil Liberties UnionACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Legal Caucus and Democracy Defenders Foundation. It attempts to represent a type of proposed child born under the terms of the Executive Order and its parents.
President Donald Trump answered questions at a press conference on the Supreme Court’s ruling held in the White House briefing room on Friday. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
no The first legal challenge to policy. The same group filed a lawsuit in the same court on behalf of the advocacy group in January 2025, and its members expect children to be denied citizenship under the order. The case led to a ruling of the ruling members of these groups, now being tried for the First Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral debate scheduled for August 1.
Friday’s SCOTUS ruling stated that unless it is absolutely necessary to completely ease the prosecutor, lower courts will no longer block federal policy nationwide. The decision did not say whether Trump’s birthright citizenship order was legal, but it means the order could be partially in the country, while legal challenges continue. The court submitted a 30-day review of its existing ruling to the lower court.
“These applications were not made – so we did not resolve – the question of whether the executive order violated the Citizenship or Nationality Act,” said Judge Amy Coney Barrett. “The question before us is a remedy: whether the federal court has the power to impose a universal injunction under the Judicial Act of 1789.”
She added: “The universal ban is only reasonable as an exercise of fair authority, but Congress grants federal courts no such power.”
Supreme Court accepts birthright citizenship: Liberals reject national ban amid Trump debate
President Donald Trump is joined by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Judge Sonia Sotomayor suggested in her objection that the plaintiff could take class action.
“Nevertheless, parents of children covered by citizenship orders will be well-deserved for class action lawsuits and require provisional injunctive relief for presumed class certification,” Sotomayor wrote. “For policies that are as blatantly illegal and harmful as citizenship orders, the lower court will wisely act quickly in accordance with such relief requirements and to rule these cases as soon as possible for a timely review of the court.”
The American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit calls birthright citizenship “the most basic commitment in the United States” and claims that executive orders threaten children who create “a permanent, multi-generation subsidiary” refuse legal recognition.
“The Supreme Court ruling is not out of reach, and we are working to ensure that President Trump cannot trample on the civil rights of single children,” said Cody Wofsy, chief attorney for the ACLU Immigration Rights Program and lead attorney.
Media members were located in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. on Friday’s last day. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
“This executive order directly opposes our constitution, values and history,” added Devon Chaffee, executive director of ACLU of New Hampshire. “No politician can decide that citizenship is worthy of in the people born in our country.”
The lawsuit cites the 14th Amendment, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and bound by their jurisdiction, are citizens.” It also refers to the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed the right-to-birth citizenship of non-citizen children born in the United States.
The plaintiffs include individuals from Honduras, Taiwan and Brazil. A New Hampshire mother expects her fourth child and fears that the baby will be denied citizenship
The case was Barbara et al. v. Trump et al., No. 1:25-CV-244, filed in U.S. District Court New Hampshire Region.
“Trump’s executive order directly opposes our constitution, values and history, which will create a permanent, multi-generational subclass, but was born in the United States but deprived of all rights,” said Sangyeob Kim of ACLU, New Hampshire in January.
Click here to get the Fox News app
“Today’s historic decision to reject President Trump’s decisive rejection by leftist activist judges who are trying to deny the president’s constitutional authority,” White House spokesman Liz Huston wrote to Fox News Digital.
“President Trump will continue to carry out his first U.S. agenda and the Trump administration looks forward to the merits of the litigation’s right to birth citizenship issues to ensure we secure our boundaries and keep America safe again.”
Breanne Deppisch of Fox News Digital contributed to the report.
