What federal court rulings have addressed President Trump’s Executive Order 14160 on birthright citizenship?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Three layers of federal rulings have shaped the legal fight over President Trump’s Executive Order 14160: multiple federal district judges issued nationwide preliminary injunctions blocking the Order’s enforcement, the Supreme Court intervened to curtail the reach of those nationwide injunctions without deciding the Order’s constitutionality, and the Supreme Court has agreed to review—on a merits track—the constitutional challenge to the Order during its 2025–26 term [1] [2] [3].
1. District courts: multiple preliminary injunctions stopping enforcement
Shortly after EO 14160 was issued, litigation sprang up in several federal district courts and judges in Washington State, Maryland and elsewhere entered preliminary injunctions that prevented the executive branch from implementing the Order while lawsuits proceeded; one district judge, Leo Sorokin, explicitly ruled that the Constitution “confers birthright citizenship broadly” in issuing a nationwide injunction [3] [1] [4]. Litigation strategies varied—states, cities, and membership organizations filed suits—and the practical effect of the district rulings was to enjoin the government from using EO 14160 to deny citizenship documentation to children born in the United States in the covered categories [3] [5].
2. The Supreme Court’s interim move: curbing nationwide injunctions, not resolving the merits
The Supreme Court stepped into the procedural fight in mid‑2025 and by a 6–3 vote partially lifted the district courts’ nationwide injunctions in a decision focused on the appropriateness and scope of nationwide relief, explicitly declining at that time to rule on whether the Order itself violates the Constitution [2]. That ruling altered who could be protected by district court orders and signaled the justices’ skepticism about broad judicially imposed nationwide bans, while leaving intact the underlying constitutional challenges pending further proceedings [2] [6].
3. The Court agreed to review the substantive constitutional question
Beyond the procedural question about nationwide injunctions, the Supreme Court accepted review of the constitutional challenge to EO 14160 and is scheduled to hear the case in its 2025–26 term, with oral argument expected in the spring of 2026 and a decision likely by summer 2026; the government had asked the Court both to narrow the injunctions and to uphold the Order’s claims about the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment [3] [7] [8]. The filings and emergency applications collected on the Supreme Court docket reflect competing claims about statutory and constitutional authority, and the Court’s eventual merits opinion will be the first high‑court ruling to revisit the modern scope of the Citizenship Clause since Wong Kim Ark [9] [10].
4. How lower courts and advocates characterized the rulings and the law
Advocates challenging the Order point to long‑standing precedent—most prominently Wong Kim Ark and interpretations of the Citizenship Clause—to argue that EO 14160 likely violates Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act, and they note that “every court to consider the cases” in lower courts found the EO likely unconstitutional and enjoined enforcement [10] [5]. The administration and its supporters counter that the Clause should be read more narrowly—invoking notions like “subject to the jurisdiction” or “primary allegiance”—and framed EO 14160 as consistent with historical understandings and within executive authority to control documentation and citizenship recognition [11] [12].
5. What remains unresolved and why the rulings matter
As of the most recent rulings, the substantive legality of EO 14160 remains unresolved in lower courts because the Supreme Court’s June 2025 intervention addressed nationwide injunctions but did not decide whether the Order is constitutional; the high court’s upcoming merits decision will determine whether the executive branch may categorically withhold birthright citizenship from children born here to certain noncitizen parents and will likely reshape both immigration policy and federal‑court remedies going forward [2] [3] [6]. Reporting and court documents show substantial disagreement among judges, advocates and the administration over precedent, statutory text, and historical practice, and the Supreme Court’s forthcoming opinion will be the definitive federal ruling on the Order unless Congress acts [9] [6].