Among the numerous Executive Orders issued from the current Administration in January of this year, President Trump signed the “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” Executive Order (“EO 14160”) on his first day in office. This executive order sets forth a new policy that prohibits the U.S. government, or any department of the government, from issuing documents which would recognize U.S. citizenship to persons whose mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Going a step further, EO 14160 also prohibits the U.S. government, or any other government department, from issuing citizenship documentation if the mother was lawfully, but temporarily, in the country or if the father was not a lawful permanent resident or citizen at the time of the person’s birth.
President Trump’s EO 14160 is a clear departure from the birthright citizenship right granted in the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
As with several other executive orders, litigation opposing EO 14160 arose earlier this year. In May, the Supreme Court of the United States heard Trump v. Casa, Inc.,a combination of three suits[1]. On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its decision.
In the three original cases, the Plaintiffs challenged EO 14160, alleging that the order violates Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as the Nationality Act of 1940 (codified at 8 U.S.C. §1401). The District Courts for all three cases entered nationwide injunctions barring EO 14160 provisions from being applied to anyone and not just the plaintiffs. In all three cases, the Government filed applications to stay injunctions and limit them to just the parties, which were ultimately consolidated.
The Supreme Court in Trump v. Casa, Inc. reviewed the issue of whether District Courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789. While the Supreme Court did not review the merits of the challenges to EO 14160, it did grant the Government’s applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions. In doing this, the Supreme Court eliminated lower federal courts’ ability to issue nationwide or universal injunctions when they go beyond what is necessary to give the plaintiffs relief. Therefore, federal courts may only issue injunctive relief to the plaintiffs on the specific case. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissented lamenting about the fact that the majority ignored the merits regarding whether EO 14160 is constitutional.
For years, there has been conversation regarding the authority of federal courts to issue injunctions against executive policies. However, until now, there had been no statute, rule or Supreme Court decision which expressly granted or forbade federal courts the authority to issue injunctions.
With this holding, we will likely see an increase in litigation around the country now that individuals cannot rely on nationwide injunctions. Obviously, there are large numbers of people affected by these executive orders, and they will each need their own injunctive ruling.
Because more individuals must appear on a case, we will also likely see an increase in class actions, an often time-consuming and expensive process. The Government in Trump v. Casa argued that courts should not have the authority to grant injunctive relief to a class that has not been certified, but the Court did not address this sub-issue.
We may also see a rise in Attorneys General challenging executive orders on behalf of their states. The Supreme Court in Trump v. Casa did not address how their holding would affect these types of suits. An increase in litigation is almost surely on the horizon following this ruling.
[1] Trump v. Casa, Inc.; Trump v. Washington; Trump v. New Jersey