News
What is birthright citizenship and what happens after the Supreme Court ruling?
Demonstrators hold a sign reading “Hands Off Birthright Citizenship!” outside the Supreme Court on June 27, 2025. The Supreme Court did not rule on President Trump’s controversial executive order, but it did limit lower courts’ ability to block executive actions with universal injunctions.
Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images
After the Supreme Court issued a ruling that limits the ability of federal judges to issue universal injunctions — but didn’t rule on the legality of President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship — immigrant rights groups are trying a new tactic by filing a national class action lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two immigrant rights organizations whose members include people without legal status in the U.S. who “have had or will have children born in the United States after February 19, 2025,” according to court documents.
One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, William Powell, senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, says his colleagues at CASA, Inc. and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project think that, with the class action approach “we will be able to get complete relief for everyone who would be covered by the executive order.”

The strategic shift required three court filings: one to add class allegations to the initial complaint; a second to move for class certification; and a third asking a district court in Maryland to issue “a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction asking for relief for that putative class,” Powell said.
In the amended complaint, filed two hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling, the immigrant rights attorneys said that Trump’s effort to ban birthright citizenship, if allowed to stand, “would throw into doubt the citizenship status of thousands of children across the country.”
“The Executive Order threatens these newborns’ identity as United States citizens and interferes with their enjoyment of the full privileges, rights, and benefits that come with U.S. citizenship, including calling into question their ability to remain in their country of birth,” reads the complaint.
Rights groups and 22 states had asked federal judges to block President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. Issued on his first day in office, the executive order states, “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”
But after three federal district court judges separately blocked Trump’s order, issuing universal injunctions preventing its enforcement nationwide, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block universal injunctions altogether.
The Supreme Court did not rule on the birthright issue itself. But after the ruling, Trump called it a “monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law,” in a briefing at the White House.
The president said the ruling means his administration can now move forward with his efforts to fundamentally reshape longstanding U.S. policy on immigration and citizenship.
Friday’s ruling quickly sparked questions about how the dispute over birthright citizenship will play out now — and how the ruling on universal injunctions might affect other efforts to push back on executive policies, under President Trump and future presidents.
“Nationwide injunctions have been an important tool to prevent blatantly illegal and unconstitutional conduct,” the National Immigrant Justice Center’s director of litigation, Keren Zwick, said in a statement sent to NPR. The decision to limit such injunctions, she said, “opens a pathway for the president to break the law at will.”
Both Zwick and Powell emphasized that the Supreme Court did not rule on a key question: whether Trump’s executive order is legal.
At the White House, Attorney General Pam Bondi would not answer questions about how the order might be implemented and enforced.
“This is all pending litigation,” she said, adding that she expects the Supreme Court to take up the issue this fall.
“We’re obviously disappointed with the result on nationwide injunctions,” Powell said. But, he added, he believes the Supreme Court will ultimately quash Trump’s attack on birthright citizenship.
“The executive order flagrantly violates the 14th Amendment citizenship clause and Section 1401a of the Immigration and Nationality Act,” Powell said, “both of which guarantee birthright citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States, with only narrow exceptions for ambassadors [and] invading armies.”
The court’s ruling set a 30-day timeframe for the policy laid out in Trump’s executive order to take effect.
“The Government here is likely to suffer irreparable harm from the District Courts’ entry of injunctions that likely exceed the authority conferred by the Judiciary Act,” a syllabus, or headnote, of the Supreme Court’s ruling states.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also discusses the differences between “complete relief ” and “universal relief.”
“Here, prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship,” Barrett wrote. “Extending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete.”
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling suggests that constitutional guarantees might not apply to anyone who isn’t a party to a lawsuit.
The concept of birthright citizenship has deep roots, dating to the English common law notion of jus soli (“right of the soil”). The doctrine was upended for a time in the U.S. by the Supreme Court’s notorious Dred Scott ruling.
Current legal standing for birthright citizenship in the U.S. extends back to the 1860s, when the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was ratified, stating, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
“Any executive order purporting to limit birthright citizenship is just as unconstitutional today as it was yesterday,” Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, told NPR.
“There is nothing substantively in the decision that undercuts those lower court opinions. The opinion just undercuts the tools available to the courts to enforce that constitutional mandate.”
News
What to know about Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s release from immigration custody
BALTIMORE — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation helped galvanize opposition to President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, was released from immigration detention on Thursday, and a judge has temporarily blocked any further efforts to detain him.
Abrego Garcia currently can’t be deported to his home country of El Salvador thanks to a 2019 immigration court order that found he had a “well founded fear” of danger there. However, the Trump administration has said he cannot stay in the U.S. Over the past few months, government officials have said they would deport him to Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana and, most recently, Liberia.
Abrego Garcia is fighting his deportation in federal court in Maryland, where his attorneys claim the administration is manipulating the immigration system to punish him for successfully challenging his earlier deportation.
Here’s what to know about the latest developments in the case:
Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran citizen with an American wife and child who has lived in Maryland for years. He immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager to join his brother, who had become a U.S. citizen. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to his home country.
While he was allowed to live and work in the U.S. under Immigration and Customs Enforcement supervision, he was not given residency status. Earlier this year, he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, despite the earlier court ruling.
When Abrego Garcia was deported in March, he was held in a notoriously brutal Salvadoran prison despite having no criminal record.
The Trump administration initially fought efforts to bring him back to the U.S. but eventually complied after the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in. He returned to the U.S. in June, only to face an arrest warrant on human smuggling charges in Tennessee. Abrego Garcia was held in a Tennessee jail for more than two months before he was released on Friday, Aug. 22, to await trial in Maryland under home detention.
His freedom lasted a weekend. On the following Monday, he reported to the Baltimore immigration office for a check-in and was immediately taken into immigration custody. Officials announced plans to deport him to a series of African countries, but they were blocked by an order from U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland.
On Thursday, after months of legal filings and hearings, Xinis ruled that Abrego Garcia should be released immediately. Her ruling hinged on what was likely a procedural error by the immigration judge who heard his case in 2019.
Normally, in a case like this, an immigration judge will first issue an order of removal. Then the judge will essentially freeze that order by issuing a “withholding of removal” order, according to Memphis immigration attorney Andrew Rankin.
In Abrego Garcia’s case, the judge granted withholding of removal to El Salvador because he found Abrego Garcia’s life could be in danger there. However, the judge never took the first step of issuing the order of removal. The government argued in Xinis’ court that the order of removal could be inferred, but the judge disagreed.
Without a final order of removal, Abrego Garcia can’t be deported, Xinis ruled.
The only way to get an order of removal is to go back to immigration court and ask for one, Rankin said. But reopening the immigration case is a gamble because Abrego Garcia’s attorneys would likely seek protection from deportation in the form of asylum or some other type of relief.
One wrinkle is that immigration courts are officially part of the executive branch, and the judges there are not generally viewed as being as independent as federal judges.
“There might be independence in some areas, but if the administration wants a certain result, by all accounts it seems they’re going to exert the pressure on the individuals to get that result,” Rankin said. “I hope he gets a fair shake, and two lawyers make arguments — somebody wins, somebody loses — instead of giving it to an immigration judge with a 95% denial rate, where everybody in the world knows how it’s gonna go down.”
Alternatively, the government could appeal Xinis’ order to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and try to get her ruling overturned, Rankin said. If the appeals court agreed with the government that the final order of removal was implied, there could be no need to reopen the immigration case.
In compliance with Xinis’ order, Abrego Garcia was released from immigration detention in Pennsylvania on Thursday evening and allowed to return home for the first time in months. However, he was also told to report to an immigration officer in Baltimore early the next morning.
Fearing that he would be detained again, his attorneys asked Xinis for a temporary restraining order. Xinis filed that order early Friday morning. It prohibits immigration officials from taking Abrego Garcia back into custody, at least for the time being. A hearing on the issue could happen as early as next week.
Meanwhile, in Tennessee, Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty in the criminal case where he is charged with human smuggling and conspiracy to commit human smuggling.
Prosecutors claim he accepted money to transport, within the United States, people who were in the country illegally. The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee for speeding. Body camera footage from a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer shows a calm exchange with Abrego Garcia. There were nine passengers in the car, and the officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. However, Abrego Garcia was eventually allowed to continue driving with only a warning.
Abrego Garcia has asked U.S. District Court Judge Waverly Crenshaw to dismiss the smuggling charges on the grounds of “selective or vindictive prosecution.”
Crenshaw earlier found “some evidence that the prosecution against him may be vindictive” and said many statements by Trump administration officials “raise cause for concern.” Crenshaw specifically cited a statement by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on a Fox News Channel program that seemed to suggest the Justice Department charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful-deportation case.
The two sides have been sparring over whether senior Justice Department officials, including Blanche, can be required to testify in the case.
News
Afghan CIA fighters face stark reality in the U.S. : Consider This from NPR
A makeshift memorial stands outside the Farragut West Metro station on December 01, 2025 in Washington, DC. Two West Virginia National Guard troops were shot blocks from the White House on November 26.
Heather Diehl/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Heather Diehl/Getty Images
They survived some of the Afghanistan War’s most grueling and treacherous missions.
But once they evacuated to the U.S., many Afghan fighters who served in “Zero Units” found themselves spiraling.
Among their ranks was Rahmanullah Lakanwal, the man charged with killing one National Guard member and seriously injuring a second after opening fire on them in Washington, D.C. on Thanksgiving Eve.
NPR’s Brian Mann spoke to people involved in Zero Units and learned some have struggled with mental health since coming to the U.S. At least four soldiers have died by suicide.
For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at considerthis@npr.org.
This episode was produced by Erika Ryan and Karen Zamora. It was edited by Alina Hartounian and Courtney Dorning.
Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.
News
Video: Behind the Supreme Court’s Push to Expand Presidential Power
new video loaded: Behind the Supreme Court’s Push to Expand Presidential Power
By Ann E. Marimow, Claire Hogan, Stephanie Swart and Pierre Kattar
December 12, 2025
-
Alaska7 days agoHowling Mat-Su winds leave thousands without power
-
Texas7 days agoTexas Tech football vs BYU live updates, start time, TV channel for Big 12 title
-
Ohio1 week ago
Who do the Ohio State Buckeyes hire as the next offensive coordinator?
-
Washington4 days agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa6 days agoMatt Campbell reportedly bringing longtime Iowa State staffer to Penn State as 1st hire
-
Miami, FL6 days agoUrban Meyer, Brady Quinn get in heated exchange during Alabama, Notre Dame, Miami CFP discussion
-
Cleveland, OH6 days agoMan shot, killed at downtown Cleveland nightclub: EMS
-
World6 days ago
Chiefs’ offensive line woes deepen as Wanya Morris exits with knee injury against Texans