State of New Jersey v. Trump
131 F.4th 27
1st Cir.2025Background
- Eighteen states, the District of Columbia, and the City of San Francisco challenged the enforcement of Executive Order No. 14,160, which restricted the recognition of U.S. citizenship at birth in certain cases involving parents' immigration status.
- The Executive Order aimed to deny birthright citizenship to individuals born in the U.S. if their mothers were unlawfully present or lawfully present only temporarily and their fathers were neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents.
- Plaintiffs claimed the Executive Order violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause and 8 U.S.C. § 1401.
- The District Court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, barring federal officials (except the President himself) from enforcing the Executive Order.
- The Government moved to stay the injunction pending appeal, arguing mainly that the plaintiff-states lacked standing.
- The First Circuit was asked only to decide the stay motion, not the merits of the preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing—Article III injury | States risk loss of federal funds based on federal program eligibility | States’ losses are too attenuated or self-inflicted to confer standing | For Plaintiffs |
| Standing—Third-party (citizenship rights) | States can assert third-party rights if enforcement indirectly harms those rights | Only rights-holders can bring claims; states lack third-party standing | For Plaintiffs |
| Irreparable Harm/Public Interest factors | Enforcement would cause immediate loss of funds and disrupt settled citizenship law | Preliminary injunction harms exec. branch immigration authority; harms public | For Plaintiffs |
| Scope of Injunction (Nationwide/Overbreadth) | Injunction must be nationwide to provide complete relief to plaintiff-states | Overbroad; should only apply within each state’s borders or only to direct injuries | For Plaintiffs |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (standard of review for preliminary injunctions)
- Department of Commerce v. New York, 588 U.S. 752 (states’ standing based on loss of federal funds)
- Biden v. Nebraska, 143 S. Ct. 2355 (loss of expected federal monetary benefits confers standing)
- United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670 (limits on attenuated injuries as Article III harm)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (factors for granting a stay pending appeal)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (general rule for asserting own rights for standing)
- Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (third-party standing exception when restriction against litigant violates others’ rights)
- Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (third-party standing for direct economic injury)
- Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249 (third-party standing for pocketbook injury)
- Scripps-Howard Radio v. FCC, 316 U.S. 4 (public interest in avoiding premature enforcement of unlawful action)