Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Ban Remains Blocked on Appeal (1)

President Donald Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship remains blocked after a federal appeals court ruled it has “every reason to be wary” of the administration’s efforts to undo its “established tradition” of recognizing this pathway to citizenship.

“Our nation’s history of efforts to restrict birthright citizenship—from Dred Scott in the decade before the Civil War to the attempted justification for the enforcement of the Chinese Exclusion Act in Wong Kim Ark—has not been a proud one,” Chief Judge David J. Barron of the First Circuit said.

Barron used his 100-page opinion to push back against the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v Casa, curbing the district court’s power to issue nationwide injunctions. He noted that the district court found a narrower injunction would leave some harms unremedied due to the scope of the executive order that sweeps up any child seeking services and the ability of jurisdictions to verify their citizenship statuses.

“We therefore decline to conclude that the District Court has abused its discretion in fashioning relief,” he said.

Further, the district courts didn’t err when they concluded the plaintiffs challenging the executive order were likely to succeed on their claims under the Citizenship Clause of the US Constitution and federal law.

Broadly, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district courts’ injunctions, vacating them narrowly only in so far as they apply to Trump himself or governmental agencies rather than agency officials.

“The government is wrong to argue that various limits on our remedial power independently require us to reverse the preliminary injunctions,” Barron said.

The case stems from challengers in three lawsuits that protest the controversial executive order, which denies automatic citizenship to US-born children of immigrants who entered the country illegally or have temporary legal status. The order has been blocked nationally by numerous district and federal appeals courts.

The plaintiffs sufficiently established irreparable harm since affected individuals would be harmed, even if citizenship was only temporarily denied, and states would administrative burdens and loss of federal funding, Barron said. The balance of equities also favor the plaintiffs, as there’s a strong public interest ensuring those entitled to citizenship aren’t unlawfully deprived of it.

“The government is not irreparably harmed by an injunction issued to parties with Article III standing that bars enforcement of an unlawful executive order,” Barron said.

Judges Julie Rikelman and Seth R. Aframe joined the opinion.

The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the Asian Law Caucus represent the plaintiffs in the New Hampshire case. Lawyers for Civil Rights represents the plaintiffs in the Doe v. Trump case. The New Jersey Attorney General’s Office and Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office represent the plaintiffs in the NJ v. Trump case. The respective attorneys general represent the coalition of plaintiff states in NJ v. Trump.

The cases are New Jersey v. Trump, 1st Cir., No. 25-1170, 10/3/25, Doe v. Trump, 1st Cir., No. 25-01169, 10/3/25, and N.H. Indonesian Community Support v. Trump, 1st Cir. App., No. 25-01348, 10/3/25.