765 F.Supp.3d 102
D.N.H.2025Background
- Plaintiffs (nonprofit organizations) challenged a 2025 executive order by the President excluding certain U.S.-born children from birthright citizenship if their mothers were unlawfully present or only temporarily in the U.S., and the fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful residents.
- The challenged executive order was set to take effect on February 19, 2025, and would have immediate implications for members of the plaintiff organizations with impending childbirths.
- Plaintiffs asserted the order violates the Fourteenth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), focusing particularly on the constitutional and statutory text establishing birthright citizenship.
- Defendants (President, DHS, State, Agriculture, and CMS officials) argued their interpretation aligns with constitutional text and precedent, contending that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not cover the affected groups.
- The court considered only legal arguments, as the parties agreed there were no material factual disputes, and focused on the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits for a preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Cause of Action | Plaintiffs can sue to enjoin unconstitutional executive action affecting their members. | Did not dispute standing but challenged the specific cause of action. | Plaintiffs may seek injunctive relief against unconstitutional federal action. |
| Fourteenth Amendment Violation | Executive Order contradicts clear constitutional text and precedent (Wong Kim Ark); affected children are citizens. | "Subject to the jurisdiction" excludes those born to certain non-citizen parents; plaintiffs misread precedent. | Order violates unambiguous constitutional grant of birthright citizenship. |
| Statutory Violation (INA § 1401) | Statute mirrors Constitution; same reasoning applies, covering plaintiffs. | Statute is limited by same phrase as Constitution—excludes affected group. | Statute’s meaning follows amendment; Executive Order likely violates § 1401. |
| Irreparable Harm | Denial of citizenship to newborns is irreparable; risks statelessness, loss of benefits, deportation. | Harm is speculative, not irreparable. | Harm is concrete, imminent, and irreparable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (birthright citizenship under Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude children born on U.S. soil except for narrow, established exceptions)
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (judicial review of executive orders inconsistent with legislative will)
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (statutory language brings historical meaning and precedent)
- Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (statutory interpretation based on ordinary public meaning at enactment)
- Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (unambiguous statutory text governs, judicial inquiry ends)