In a series of rapid-fire legal developments, federal courts across the United States have once again blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born on American soil to undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors. Despite a recent Supreme Court decision that was initially celebrated by the Trump administration as a victory, lower courts have doubled down, issuing fresh nationwide injunctions and certifying class-action lawsuits that have, at least for now, kept the controversial policy at bay.
On August 7, 2025, U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman in Maryland delivered the latest blow to the administration’s efforts. According to Law360, Boardman not only granted class certification to a lawsuit brought by the immigrant rights group CASA, but also issued a new preliminary injunction that blocks the enforcement of Trump’s executive order across the country. This move followed similar decisions in Massachusetts, Seattle, and New Hampshire, where judges have maintained or expanded nationwide blocks on the policy in the wake of the Supreme Court’s June ruling.
The legal saga began in earnest earlier this summer, when the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that limited the ability of lower courts to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions. President Trump hailed the ruling as a “great win,” suggesting it would clear the path for his administration to begin enforcing the executive order targeting birthright citizenship. But six weeks later, the picture looks quite different.
Instead of clearing the way for the policy’s implementation, lower courts have found new legal avenues to keep the order on ice. As The Washington Post reported, courts in all three jurisdictions that previously blocked the order—Maryland, Massachusetts, and Seattle—have issued fresh rulings maintaining those blocks. In New Hampshire, a federal judge expanded a previously narrow injunction to apply nationwide after certifying the case as a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all children who could be denied citizenship under the directive.
Judge Boardman’s ruling in Maryland was particularly significant. By certifying CASA’s legal challenge as a class action on behalf of all U.S.-born children at risk of losing citizenship, she ensured that the injunction would apply nationwide. In her decision, Boardman wrote, “The plaintiffs are highly likely to succeed on their claims” that Trump’s order is unconstitutional, adding that “the class will be irreparably harmed if the Executive Order takes effect.”
Immigrant rights advocates welcomed the decision. Ama Frimpong, legal director of CASA, told The Washington Post, “It is very positive and very affirming about what we’ve been saying all along: This executive order is plainly unconstitutional and no judge is going to let it come into play.” The Justice Department, for its part, did not respond to requests for comment.
The Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Trump v. CASA had sent the birthright citizenship cases back to the lower courts, instructing them to determine the practical implications of the decision. Importantly, the justices did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s order, nor did they entirely close the door on nationwide injunctions. Instead, they left open the possibility for plaintiffs to seek nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits—a route that lower courts have now embraced.
Legal scholars say these developments mark the beginning of a lengthy and complicated process as lower courts work to interpret and apply the Supreme Court’s decision, not just in the context of birthright citizenship but across a broad range of federal policy challenges. University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley observed, “We have made the law and courts quite central to policymaking in the United States, for better or for worse. Getting rid of one particular way courts can provide sweeping relief does not mean the courts will be sidelined. It would take a whole lot more to do that.”
Not everyone is pleased with the persistence of nationwide injunctions. John Yoo, a conservative legal scholar who has criticized such injunctions as an “unconstitutional anomaly,” argued that the recent string of lower court decisions might actually slow down the process of getting a final answer from the Supreme Court on the underlying constitutional question. “Judges and plaintiffs are doing this because if you are opposed to the Trump administration’s executive orders, you want something like a nationwide injunction if you can get it,” Yoo explained. “On the other hand, this delays issues from getting to the Supreme Court for final resolution.”
Meanwhile, other federal judges have cited practical concerns in maintaining nationwide blocks. In Seattle, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a district judge’s ruling that Trump’s directive violates the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, affirming the nationwide injunction. The court noted that the four Democratic-led states that brought the lawsuit would face significant administrative and financial burdens if the injunction were narrowed, as they would still need to overhaul their systems to check citizenship—especially given that parents and children move between states.
Just two days later, U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin in Massachusetts echoed this reasoning in a decision involving 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia. Sorokin wrote that a “substantial number of children” covered by the executive order would move into those jurisdictions from non-plaintiff states, and the costs to determine citizenship would be “substantial and material, not de minimis or trivial.” He concluded, “No workable, narrower alternative to the injunction issued originally would provide complete relief to the plaintiffs in this case. The Court therefore declines to modify that injunction.”
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, whose state was among the plaintiffs, underscored the broad legal consensus forming around the issue. As he put it, “The courts are strongly agreeing with the states because it is clear that the 14th Amendment says what it means and means what it says: If you’re born on American soil, you’re an American citizen.”
In New Hampshire, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante initially limited his injunction to the families of plaintiffs but later expanded it nationwide after certifying the case as a class action. Laplante emphasized that judges should refrain from “create[ing] national policy” through judicial rulings, but acknowledged that the Supreme Court had “suggested a class action is a better option.” Cody Wofsy, the ACLU’s lead attorney in the New Hampshire case, remarked, “We expect this order will never be enforced because the class action is on such strong legal footing.”
As the legal wrangling continues, one thing is clear: the Supreme Court’s attempt to limit the reach of lower court injunctions has not yet cleared the way for the Trump administration’s birthright citizenship order. Instead, it has set the stage for a complex, drawn-out battle over the power of the courts and the meaning of the Constitution’s promise of citizenship to those born on American soil. The outcome, whenever it finally arrives, will resonate far beyond this single policy fight.
