Washington v. Trump (Birthright Citizenship Executive Order Challenge)

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.  

LWVUS was represented in this matter by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.