Two major immigrant rights groups, CASA Inc. and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), have escalated their legal battle against President Donald J. Trump’s executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship for children of noncitizens and non-permanent residents in the United States. The groups filed a federal class-action lawsuit on Friday, shortly after the Supreme Court's decision that restricts lower courts from issuing broad injunctions against federal policies but allows class-wide relief.

The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Maryland, includes a class of expectant and recent mothers, aiming for certification to represent all children born in the US from February 19, 2025, onwards, under similar circumstances. The executive order issued on January 20, 2025, targets newborns of undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status, denying them automatic citizenship—a stark shift from longstanding practices and interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The plaintiffs contend that the executive order blatantly violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court, notably in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. This landmark decision affirmed that the children of foreign-born parents are entitled to U.S. citizenship if born on American soil, barring few exceptions like children of foreign diplomats.

In their emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, the plaintiffs argue that without immediate judicial intervention, thousands of newborns would be unjustly stripped of their constitutional and statutory rights. They emphasize the urgency of a class-wide injunction to prevent widespread denial of citizenship, which could affect countless families and children across the nation.

The filing follows a significant Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., where the majority, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, limited the scope of injunctive relief to named plaintiffs unless a lawful class action is pursued. However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, criticized this limitation as potentially rendering constitutional protections ineffective for those not directly involved in litigation.

Acknowledging the new judicial landscape, the plaintiffs seek emergency class-wide injunctive relief, leveraging the Supreme Court's acknowledgment that such measures are still viable under class action criteria.

This legal challenge highlights the ongoing and heated debate surrounding immigration and citizenship rights in the United States, signifying a critical juncture in the interpretation and application of the Constitution's guarantees. The outcome of this lawsuit could have profound implications for immigration policy and the fundamental principles of nationality in the U.S.