Which federal courts have blocked or upheld the birthright citizenship orders and why?
Executive summary
Federal trial courts in multiple jurisdictions — including New Hampshire, Washington State and Maryland — enjoined enforcement of President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, finding it likely violated the Fourteenth Amendment and related statutes; a federal appeals court in the First Circuit upheld at least one such block (the Massachusetts-based appeal) while the U.S. Supreme Court has stepped in to limit the power of nationwide (or “universal”) injunctions and has agreed to hear the core constitutional challenge this spring in Trump v. Barbara (Barbara v. Trump) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. These decisions split the litigation into two tracks: lower courts deciding the order’s constitutionality and the Supreme Court deciding both injunction doctrine and, imminently, the constitutional question [6] [7].
1. District courts: immediate, nationwide blocks grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment
Within days and weeks after the executive order was issued, federal district judges in several states entered injunctions barring enforcement — notably a New Hampshire judge who barred enforcement for babies born on or after the order’s effective date and district courts in Washington and Maryland that likewise enjoined the administration — reasoning that the order likely violated the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and conflicted with long-standing Supreme Court precedent and statutory history [1] [2] [7] [8].
2. Federal appeals courts: affirmations of the lower-court findings — at least in the First Circuit
When the government appealed, the First Circuit (sitting in Boston) upheld a block on the order, explicitly invoking history and precedent to reject the administration’s break with the established “tradition of recognizing birthright citizenship,” language highlighted by the ACLU after the October 2025 ruling [3]. Advocacy groups and legal observers characterized this string of lower-court losses as unanimous so far, with each court that addressed the merits finding the EO likely unconstitutional and issuing injunctions [8] [5].
3. The Supreme Court: curbing universal injunctions while reserving the merit question for full review
In a pivotal June decision, the Supreme Court curtailed district courts’ authority to issue nationwide or “universal” injunctions — a ruling that undercut the practical reach of some lower-court orders even while it explicitly declined to resolve whether the executive order itself violates the Citizenship Clause or the Nationality Act [4] [6]. That doctrinal ruling limited courts’ equitable power but left intact the factual and constitutional findings lower courts had made, creating a situation where geographically inconsistent protections could arise unless the high court decides the underlying issue [6].
4. Why courts blocked the order: constitutional history, precedent, and statutory arguments
The lower courts’ injunctions rested on a mix of legal reasoning: they found the EO likely contravened the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ran counter to over a century of Supreme Court precedent such as Wong Kim Ark and its progeny, and conflicted with statutes and historical practice that have treated birthright citizenship as the default rule — conclusions repeated by advocacy groups and commentators tracking these cases [8] [7] [9]. Appeals courts echoed that historical skepticism, warning against an abrupt, executive-branch carve‑out to longstanding doctrine [3].
5. Why some courts or voices resisted: injunction doctrine and competing readings of the 14th Amendment
The administration pressed two linked themes: a substantive argument that the Fourteenth Amendment has been misread and that the Citizenship Clause should not be interpreted to confer automatic citizenship in all the circumstances it has been understood to cover, and a procedural argument seeking to limit the national reach of district-court injunctions [10] [1]. The Supreme Court’s decision narrowing universal injunctions reflects partial success for the procedural effort, even as the high court agreed to hear the substantive constitutional challenge in Trump v. Barbara — a signal that the ultimate answer will rest with the justices [6] [1] [7].
6. Where this leaves the law now: fractured protections pending the Court’s ruling
Because district courts enjoined enforcement but the Supreme Court has restricted nationwide injunctions and accepted Barbara for plenary review, legal protections now depend on a mix of existing injunctions, the limits the justices imposed on their reach, and the outcome of the upcoming merits argument — meaning the question of who is protected today differs by litigation posture until the Court issues its ruling expected by early July 2026 [6] [7] [11].