April 1, 2026 2:30 pm WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Trump v. Barbara, a nationwide class action brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, and the Democracy Defenders Fund on behalf of children who would be denied citizenship under an executive order issued by President Trump. The groups presented arguments challenging the administration’s efforts to dismantle birthright citizenship — the legal principle guaranteed by the 14th Amendment that babies born in the United States are U.S. citizens — highlighting how Trump’s executive order flouts the Constitution’s dictates, longstanding Supreme Court precedent, a statute passed by Congress, and fundamental American values. Courts have uniformly blocked the Trump administration from implementing the executive order. A Supreme Court decision is expected by the end of June or early July. The following is comment from the co-counsel in this case: “All of us born in this country are Americans, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. That is the principle we defended before the United States Supreme Court today,” said Cecillia Wang, ACLU national legal director, who argued the case before the court. “I left the courtroom thinking about my parents and so many families who came here seeking refuge, opportunity, and the American way of life. We couldn’t be more confident that this unlawful, un-American executive order will be struck down.” “Today’s argument before the Supreme Court was on behalf of the countless families who would be harmed, especially children and families of color, if the Trump administration’s birthright citizenship executive order takes effect,” said Morenike Fajana, senior counsel at the Legal Defense Fund. “We are confident in our case against such an unlawful attempt to rewrite the Constitution in a way that is antithetical to who we are as a nation.” “Birthright citizenship was affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, when a Chinese American community challenged the idea that people like them could never fully belong. For Asian Americans, that history is deeply personal — it is a right we helped shape and defend,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director at Asian Law Caucus. “Trump’s executive order attempts to erase that legacy, denying families the dignity, stability, and belonging that the Constitution guarantees to every child born in this country. We’re fighting today to ensure that in our democracy, no president gets to re-define who is born a citizen and who is not.” “Birthright citizenship has been clearly protected for well over a century by the plain text of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and congressional enactment. An attack on this indisputable right is an assault on the Constitution itself,” said Amb. Norm Eisen (ret.), co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund. “If this indisputable legal principle is up for grabs, so is anything in the Constitution and American law. That cannot be the case and so birthright citizenship must stand.” “Our Constitution and the more than a century of court decisions on this topic are overwhelmingly clear: no politician can decide who among those born in this country is worthy of citizenship. We are fighting this cruel executive order to ensure that every child born in the United States has their right to citizenship protected instead of being relegated to a permanent, multigenerational subclass of people born in the U.S. but who are denied full rights,” said SangYeob Kim, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the ACLU of New Hampshire. “Birthright citizenship is a cornerstone of our democracy, deeply rooted in the American legal tradition and enshrined in our Constitution,” said Carol Rose, executive director at the ACLU of Massachusetts. “The 14th Amendment and centuries of precedent categorically reject the maintenance of a permanent underclass. No good-faith reading of the law can hold otherwise. That is why we are asking the Supreme Court to unequivocally reject the Trump administration's unlawful attempt to strip away the fundamental American guarantee that every baby born in this country is equal.” “Birthright citizenship has been the law of the land since the 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868,” said ACLU of Maine Executive Director Molly Curren Rowles. “It is a core reason that the United States has been seen for generations as a beacon of freedom and opportunity around the world. Successive waves of immigrants have shaped and reshaped every aspect of our society and culture, from the food we eat and the music we listen to, to our regional accents and religious practices. As Americans, we are bound by our values and commitment to a pluralistic, free society — not by our family heritage. We hope a decision in this critically important case can bring stability at a time when immigrant families across the country face increasing hostility, threats, harm, and uncertainty.” More case background is here. Related Content Press Release May 2026 Immigrants' Rights ACLU, Partners File New Lawsuit Challenging S.B. 4, Texas’ Deportation Scheme The legal team is seeking emergency relief to block several provisions of the law from taking effect May 15 AUSTIN, Texas — The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Texas, and the Texas Civil Rights Project have filed a class-action lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block several provisions of Senate Bill 4 (88-4) from going into effect May 15. The 2023 law is one of the most extreme anti-immigrant laws ever passed by any state legislature in the country. S.B. 4 would allow local and state law enforcement to arrest, detain, and remove people they suspect to have entered Texas from another country without federal authorization. The organizations are specifically seeking to prevent four different provisions of the law from going into effect, including: The reentry crime that would apply to anyone living in or traveling through Texas who reentered the United States without federal authorization — even if the person had federal permission to reenter or has since obtained lawful immigration status such as a green card. The power given to magistrates — who don’t know the intricacies of immigration law — to issue deportation orders. The crime of failing to comply with the magistrate’s removal orders. The requirement that magistrates continue a prosecution even when a person has a pending immigration case under federal law. Advocates have warned that the law will separate families and directly lead to racial profiling, subjecting thousands of Black and Brown Texans to the state prison system, which is rife with civil rights abuses. “S.B. 4 would transform our police and judges into immigration agents — threatening neighbors who have families here, who have lived here for years, even those who have legal status,” said Adriana Piñon, legal director at the ACLU of Texas. “Immigration enforcement is exclusively the federal government's arena, and no state has ever claimed the power Texas threatens to wield here. We are taking this back to court to defend our Texas communities.” The individual plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit seek to represent thousands of people across the state who may be held liable for violating the reentry provision of S.B. 4. One plaintiff is a lawful permanent resident. A second plaintiff has been approved for a lawful U Visa, a step on the path toward citizenship, which she received after becoming the victim of a crime and helping law enforcement resolve the case. “Every court to have reached the merits of laws like S.B. 4 has found them to be unconstitutional,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “S.B. 4 is cruel and illegal, and we will keep fighting it until it is permanently struck down.” The new filing comes shortly after the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction in Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center et al v. Steven C. McCraw et al solely on the grounds that plaintiffs El Paso County, Las Americas, and American Gateways lacked standing — reversing its own three-judge panel decision from July 2025, which had found standing and held S.B. 4 to be preempted by federal law. This new lawsuit addresses the Fifth Circuit's procedural concerns. “Our fight against S.B. 4 isn’t over until justice wins,” said Kate Gibson Kumar, Beyond Borders staff attorney at Texas Civil Rights Project. “S.B. 4 is not only unconstitutional, but a vile law that uses our Texas resources to harm communities across our state. The Texas Civil Rights Project will keep fighting to protect Texas communities from the wrath of S.B. 4.” The en banc Fifth Circuit did not reach the constitutional questions at the heart of this case: whether S.B. 4 violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and unconstitutionally strips the federal government of its exclusive authority over immigration enforcement. The complaint is here. The motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is here. Court Case: LML v. Martin Aclu, Partners File New Lawsuit Challenging s.b. 4, texas’ deportation scheme . Explore Press Release. Texas May 2026 Immigrants' Rights LML v. Martin The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Texas, and the Texas Civil Rights Project filed a class-action lawsuit on May 4, 2026, seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block several provisions of Senate Bill 4 (88-4) from going into effect May 15. The 2023 law is one of the most extreme anti-immigrant laws ever passed by any state legislature in the country. Status: Ongoing Lml V. Martin. Explore Case. Press Release Apr 2026 Immigrants' Rights Federal Appeals Court Rules Trump Proclamation Eliminating Asylum is Unlawful WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court today ruled that President Trump’s Day 1 proclamation aimed at completely shutting down asylum at the border is unlawful. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s claim that the “212(f)” proclamation allowed the president to summarily deport asylum seekers who cross the border without allowing them to seek protection as required by Congress. The proclamation had falsely cited an “invasion” as the pretext for denying asylum protections for people who are at risk of persecution. The appeals court held that the government cannot subvert the laws Congress passed with extra-statutory procedures to block people from seeking asylum, which puts tens of thousands of lives at risk. The American Civil Liberties Union, National Immigrant Justice Center, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Texas Civil Rights Project, ACLU of the District of Columbia, and ACLU of Texas brought the federal lawsuit on behalf of Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, which provide legal services to asylum seekers, and a nationwide class of people barred from seeking protection in the United States under this proclamation. The following is reaction to today’s ruling: “This decision puts an end to the inhumane Trump policy of sending people, including families with little children, back to horrific danger without even a hearing,” said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the appeal. “The court made clear that the president does not have the unilateral power to wipe away all of the asylum laws enacted by Congress.” “The circuit court reaffirmed our conviction that a president cannot unilaterally eliminate the right to seek asylum by executive order. We hope that the U.S. government remembers its obligation to consider applications for refugee protections and recommits to upholding the basic rights of people fleeing persecution,” said Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “Today marks a victory for the right of people to move freely across borders. It’s a moment to celebrate the connections we have with others, regardless of artificial boundaries,” said Daniel Hatoum, senior supervising attorney at the Texas Civil Rights Project. “Today's D.C. Circuit ruling affirms that capricious actions by the president cannot supplant the rule of law in the United States. The right to seek asylum is firmly grounded in U.S. law and binding international obligations. This decision is a meaningful victory for our clients, who have been denied access to protection under policies deliberately designed to shut the door on people fleeing violence and persecution — policies that are inconsistent with those legal standards and basic due process. As organizational plaintiffs in this case, we fought this because in border communities like ours, we see the human consequences every day. Individuals and families arriving here are seeking lawful protection and the opportunity to live and work safely,” said Nicolas Palazzo, director of advocacy and legal services of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center. “Today’s decision is a win for every person who seeks safety and protection at our borders,” said Laura St. John, the legal director for the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. “The right to seek asylum in the U.S. is protected by law, and no unilateral executive action can nullify the laws and system Congress has created. We are relieved to see the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirm these principles. We call on the U.S. government to immediately move to uphold its obligation to people seeking protection and restart asylum processing at once.” “Since January of last year, the government has used the proclamation to implement a near-total shutdown of asylum processing, slamming the door on vulnerable families, children, and adults seeking refuge,” said Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS). “As the court rightly concluded, U.S. law is clear: People seeking safety have a legal right to apply for asylum. The government cannot wield racist, baseless claims of an ‘invasion’ to override Congress and deprive them of that right.” “The D.C. Circuit's decision today confirms what we have long known to be true: U.S. immigration policy, as codified by law, does not grant the president unchecked, autocratic power to override Congress,” said Faisal Al-Juburi, co-chief executive officer at RAICES. “The rule of law is fundamental to our nation, and an independent judiciary remains essential to upholding this principle.” “This ruling confirms that the president cannot invent false pretenses to eliminate life-or-death rights for refugees seeking asylum,” said Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at the ACLU of the District of Columbia. “Thankfully, the courts still function in a fact-based world and rejected the president's false claims of invasion.” The ruling is here. Case background is