793 F.Supp.3d 703
D. Md.2025Background
- Plaintiffs, including nonprofit organizations and pregnant women, challenged an Executive Order (EO 14,160) which prospectively denied U.S. citizenship to certain children born in the U.S. after February 19, 2025, based on parents’ immigration status.
- The EO directed federal agencies not to recognize citizenship for such children and applied nationwide.
- Initial injunctions were sought in district court, upheld on appeal, but the Supreme Court limited injunctions to plaintiffs with standing, noting Rule 23(b)(2) class actions as a possible broader avenue.
- Plaintiffs amended their complaint seeking class certification and classwide injunctive and declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2).
- The government opposed class certification, arguing the class was overbroad and that factors like parents' domicile defeated commonality.
- The district court analyzed Rule 23 criteria and granted class certification for a nationwide class of affected children, not parents, and appointed counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether class certification requirements under Rule 23 are met for children affected by the EO | Children face a common injury (denial of citizenship); claims hinge on shared legal question; relief would benefit all class members | Domicile of parents and individual circumstances defeat commonality and typicality; class includes members with no standing or injury | Rule 23(a) & (b)(2) requirements are met for children, not parents; EO affects all class members uniformly |
| Whether parents can be included as class members or representatives | Parents are harmed by denial of citizenship to their children and thus should be class members | Parents' injuries are not uniform or the same as children; some parents may not experience harm or seek relief | Parents cannot be class members; only children affected by EO can be members, with parents as next friends (representatives) |
| Whether future (not-yet-conceived or born) children can be included in the class | Future claimants are routinely included in Rule 23(b)(2) actions; representatives have standing | Future children lack standing or capacity to sue | Future-affected children may be included; no separate standing/capacity requirement for class members at certification |
| Whether the class scope should be narrowed geographically or due to similar cases elsewhere | EO is nationwide; only a final judgment in other cases would bar duplicative classes; class relief must match violation’s scope | Duplicative national classes with similar pending suits are unnecessary; district’s jurisdiction should limit class | Nationwide class is appropriate and necessary; duplicative suits do not preclude certification; scope matches EO |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (leading case on the requirements for class certification under Rule 23)
- United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (governs constitutional interpretation of birthright citizenship)
- Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979) (permits nationwide class actions and relief under Rule 23)
- Gen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (rigorous analysis required for class certification)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) (proponent must satisfy at least one Rule 23(b) subsection)
- Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013) (merits inquiries allowed only as relevant to Rule 23 criteria)
- Berry v. Schulman, 807 F.3d 600 (4th Cir. 2015) (rules for nationwide class-wide injunctive relief)
- Sharp Farms v. Speaks, 917 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2019) (no conflict of interest among class representatives and class members)