Case Summary
LWV, the NAACP, and the Equal Justice Society filed an amicus brief supporting states challenging an executive order by President Trump purporting to abolish birthright citizenship. The brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, asserts the executive order was unconstitutional, outlines the historic oppression of Black Americans birthright citizenship addressed, highlights the disenfranchisement revoking it would create, and explains the racial animus behind the order.
In 1857, the United States Supreme Court issued one of its most infamous decisions, Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott and his wife, two Black enslaved people, sued for their freedom arguing that, since they had been brought to a state that did not permit slavery and resided there, they should be freed from servitude under the laws of the time. After protracted litigation, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Black Americans were not United States citizens, claiming that, because they were descended from enslaved people forcibly brought to the United States from Africa, the Founders did not intend to grant them citizenship. This decision placed Black Americans beyond the protections of the United States Constitution for citizens.
In 1866, after the end of the Civil War, and in the wake of the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress passed, over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which declared that all persons born in the United States and not subject to foreign powers, excluding Native Americans not taxed, were citizens of the United States and had the right to contract, sue, testify in court, and equally benefit from laws as white Americans. Soon afterwards, in 1866, order to ensure that Congress had to power to protect the rights of the newly freed Black Americans and avoid a loss of rights based upon shifting political majorities, Congress enacted the Fourteenth Amendment, which came into effect in 1868 after being ratified by the states.
Among these provisions was the grant of birthright citizenship, which explicitly overturned Dred Scott. It reads:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Subsequent United States Supreme Court case law confirmed that the amendment also confers citizenship upon children born in the United States to non-US citizen parents.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14160 (“Executive Order”), which purported to, going forward, abolish birth right citizenship for citizens born in the United States when (1) that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of their birth; or (2) that person's mother had a lawful, temporary presence in the United States at the time of their birth (such as, but not limited to, a tourist visa) and their father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.
The order also directed federal agencies to stop issuing documents indicating citizenship or accept any state or local documents recognizing the same for American citizens that fell into the above categories.
Several lawsuits were immediately filed against the Executive Order. Among these was a lawsuit brought on January 21, 2025, by the States of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The states asserted the order was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment and illegal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. On January 23, 2025, the district court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the Executive Order, which was followed by a preliminary injunction on February 3, 2025.
On February 6, 2025, the defendants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The defendants also requested an emergency stay of the district court’s ruling on February 12, 2025, which was denied on February 19. On March 13, the defendants then appealed to the United States Supreme Court for a partial stay of the district court’s injunction.
On April 11, 2025, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, and the Equal Justice Institute filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiff states in the Ninth Circuit. The brief outlines the history behind the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment and birthright citizenship, explaining why it was necessary to ensure the protection of freed enslaved people and outlining prior United States Supreme Court precedent contradicting the Executive Order. LWVUS and its co-amici also urged the court to consider the consequences of upholding the Executive Order, ranging from increased incarceration of people of color in an abusive immigration detention system and disenfranchisement of citizens.
On May 28, 2025, the League filed an additional amicus brief supporting plaintiffs challenging the Executive Order in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in the case of New Jersey v. Trump.
On June 6, 2025, the League filed two additional amicus briefs supporting other plaintiffs challenging the Executive Order in the United States Courts of Appeals for the First and Fourth Circuits in New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump and CASA, Inc. v. Trump, respectively.
LWVUS was represented in this matter by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
LWV Timeline
President Trump signs executive order on birthright citizenship
President Trump issues Executive Order 14160, which purports to abolish birthright citizenship and stop issuance or recognition of citizenship documents for certain citizens born in the United States to non-US citizens.
States file lawsuit
The states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon file a federal lawsuit, asserting the executive order is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, beyond the president’s power to issue, and illegal under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
District court issues temporary restraining order
A federal district court issues a temporary restraining order, placing the Executive Order on hold while the case proceeds.
District court issues preliminary injunction
The federal district court issues a preliminary injunction, forbidding the implementation of the order, finding the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims the order violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
Defendants file appeal
The defendants appeal the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Ninth Circuit denies emergency stay
A Ninth Circuit motions panel denies the defendants’ emergency motion for a partial stay of the preliminary injunction, allowing it to remain in effect while the appeal proceeds.
Defendants request stay from United States Supreme Court
The defendants request the United Supreme Court stay portions of the preliminary injunction and only grant certain plaintiffs relief.
LWVUS files amicus brief
LWVUS and its co-amici file their amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit, urging the court to affirm the district court’s injunction. The brief details the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and the discriminatory, disenfranchising effects it would have if upheld in the courts.
United States Supreme Court schedules oral argument on partial stay request
The United States Supreme Court defers consideration of the stay requests filed in Washington v. Trump, New Jersey, v. Trump and CASA v. Trump, scheduling argument for May 15, 2025, on whether the Court should issue a partial stay, and limit the injunctions issued by the lower courts to potentially only individual plaintiffs and residents of the plaintiff states.
LWV files brief in First Circuit
The League files an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit supporting the plaintiffs in New Jersey v. Trump, a separate case challenging the Executive Order.
LWV files additional amicus brief in First Circuit
The League files an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit supporting the plaintiffs in New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump, a separate case challenging the Executive Order.
LWV files amicus brief in Fourth Circuit
The League files an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit supporting the plaintiffs in CASA Inc. v. Trump, a separate case challenging the Executive Order.
United States Supreme Court issues opinion in CASA v. Trump
The United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, grants the partial stays, only to the extent the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to plaintiffs with standing to sue. The opinion states universal injunctions are beyond the ability of federal courts’ power to issue and remands the cases to the respective lower courts.
Ninth Circuit panel holds oral argument
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holds oral argument in the Washington v. Trump case.
Three-judge panel in Washington v. Trump strikes down order
The three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit strikes down the Executive Order, ruling the state plaintiffs had standing to sue, and that it is unconstitutional under the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Defendants file petition for a writ of certiorari
The defendants file a petition for a writ of certiorari at the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to directly decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment grants birthright citizenship to all persons born in the United States, regardless of parental citizenship.
United States Supreme Court grants petition for writ of certiorari
The United States Supreme Court grants a petition for a writ of certiorari in Trump v. Barbara, a separate case by individual plaintiffs challenging the Executive Order. The court takes up the merits of the order and whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects birthright citizenship of all children born in the United States, regardless of parental citizenship.
LWV files amicus brief in United States Supreme Court
LWV and its allies file an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court, urging the Court to rule the Executive Order unconstitutional. The brief stated that the government's arguments defending the order went against the history of American citizenship law, congressional intent, and Supreme Court precedent, and would lead to numerous harms if upheld.