Case: O. Doe v. Trump

1:25-cv-10135 | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Filed Date: Jan. 20, 2025

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case is one of several challenging President Trump's effort to narrow birthright citizenship--the Fourteenth Amendment right to U.S. citizenship to individuals born on U.S. soil and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." You can see all these cases here. President Trump was sworn in to his second term as President on January 20, 2025, and immediately issued a number of Executive Orders--including Executive Order 14160, which proclaimed that birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amen…

President Trump was sworn in to his second term as President on January 20, 2025, and immediately issued a number of Executive Orders--including Executive Order 14160, which proclaimed that birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to children born in the United States when: (1) their mother was unlawfully present in the country and their father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a permanent resident at the time of the child’s birth; or (2) when their mother was lawfully, but temporarily, present in the United States and their father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a permanent resident.

This case was filed that same day, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs were an expectant mother here lawfully but temporarily, and two nonprofit organizations, the Brazilian Worker Center and La Colaborativa. The plaintiffs, represented by Lawyers for Civil Rights (the public interest firm formerly known as the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice), alleged that the Executive Order violated the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, statutory protection of birthright citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1401, and the Administrative Procedure Act under 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

The case was assigned to District Judge Leo T. Sorokin. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction barring the defendants from enforcing the Executive Order, which was scheduled to go into effect on February 19, 2025, and a declaratory judgment that the Order is unconstitutional and unlawful. The court determined that this case and State of New Jersey v. Trump--another lawsuit challenging EO 14160 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts--were "related" under Local Rule 40.1(g).

On February 13, 2025, the Court granted the preliminary injunction, barring implementation of the executive order nationwide. 766 F.Supp.3d 266. On February 19, the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal of the of the district court's opinion and order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

On March 11, 2025, the First Circuit consolidated this case with State of New Jersey v. Trump for briefing and oral argument. The government submitted its brief on April 21, 2025, and the plaintiffs filed their reply on May 27. Oral argument in the Court of Appeals is scheduled for August 1. Meanwhile, in the district court, Judge Sorokin granted the defendants until July 11 to file their answer to the complaint.

On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its decision in State of Washington v. Trump, Casa Inc. v. Trump, and New Jersey v. Trump, each of which challenged universal preliminary injunctions barring implementation of the Executive Order. 2025 WL 1773631. The Supreme Court decided that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable powers that Congress has given to federal courts if such injunctions provide relief to individuals or entities who are not parties before the court. The correct principle, the Court ruled, was complete relief for the parties, but no more. Therefore, it partially stayed the injunctions issued in these cases, but only to the extent that the injunctions were broader than necessary. Specifically, the Court found that the injunctions were likely overbroad with regard to the individual plaintiffs in these cases, since an injunction barring enforcement only against the individual plaintiffs would give them complete relief. On the other hand, the Court declined to rule on whether the injunctions were overbroad with regard to the State plaintiffs, instead remanding the case to the respective district courts to consider that question in the first instance.

On July 3, the Court of Appeals, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Casa Inc. v. Trump, remanded the case back to the district court, "for the limited purpose of enabling the District Court to consider the bearing, if any, of th[e] guidance in CASA on the scope of the preliminary injunction" that the district court issued in this case. Therefore, the case is proceeding in the district court on this issue, while the Court of Appeals retains jurisdiction over the appeal following the resolution of this narrow question.

On October 3, 2025, the First Circuit issued an order in this case and the related case of State of New Jersey v. Trump (consolidated as Doe v. Trump), upholding the vast majority of the preliminary injunctions and denying the government's request for a stay. In a wide-ranging opinion, Chief Judge Barron found that the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act plainly guarantee citizenship to people born in the United States. Additionally, he found that the individual, state, and organizational plaintiffs each had standing to challenge the EO, and found that the scope of the injunction was appropriate in order to give complete relief to the plaintiffs, particularly the state-plaintiffs, rather than being aimed at non-parties (the issue in CASA).

On December 5, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Barbara v. Trump in order to resolve the issue of the constitutionality of the EO. On January 30, 2026, the government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the First Circuit's October 3, 2025 decision in this case and the related case State of New Jersey v. Trump.

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court affirmed the preliminary injunction in Barbara, holding that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore acquire citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court concluded that Executive Order 14160 conflicts with both the Citizenship Clause and 8 U.S.C. § 1401. 2026 WL 1870543.

As of July 2026, the government's petition for certiorari remained pending. Because the Supreme Court's decision in Barbara resolved the principal constitutional question presented in this case, further proceedings in the Supreme Court and, if necessary, the lower courts were expected to occur consistent with that decision.

This case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Niam Vora (7/1/2026)

Nicole Brigstock (4/21/2025)

Jeremiah Price (6/19/2025)

Taite Puhala (12/7/2025)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69560579/parties/doe-v-trump/

Judge(s)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Albert, Mirian (Massachusetts)

Attorney for Defendant

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Ancheta, Angelo

Babar, Rahat N.

Baldwin, Anna Marks

Bartlett, Hannah

Judge(s)

Sorokin, Leo Theodore (Massachusetts)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Albert, Mirian (Massachusetts)

Coulam, Andrew C. (Massachusetts)

Espinoza-Madrigal, Ivan (Massachusetts)

Hermandorfer, Whitney D. (Massachusetts)

Love, Jacob M. (Massachusetts)

Rice, James Matthew (Massachusetts)

Sellstrom, Oren M. (Massachusetts)

Attorney for Defendant

Foley, Leah Belaire

Fuchs, Yuri (Massachusetts)

George, Abraham R.

Hamilton, Eric (Massachusetts)

Hinshelwood, Bradley

Jacobs, Kathleen (Massachusetts)

Lockhart, Donald Campbell

McArthur, Eric Dean

Merritt, Robert Charles (Massachusetts)

Rosenberg, Brad P. (Massachusetts)

Sady, Michael P. (Massachusetts)

Other

Chang, Robert Seungchul

Chatterjee, Indra Neel

Chen, Lori

Chen, Edgar

Conte, Pietro Alfredo

Hajec, Christopher J.

Hilton, Christopher D.

McLane, Ryan P. (Massachusetts)

McMahon, Susan

McMechan, Mac

McNamara, Frank L. (Massachusetts)

McNeil, Daniel J.

Medina, Elena

Morgan, Jeremiah

O'Brien, Matthew James (Massachusetts)

Attorney Contact Information via CourtListener

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

1 1:25-cv-10135	Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Doe v. Trump	Jan. 20, 2025	Jan. 20, 2025 Complaint
144 1:25-cv-10135	Memorandum of Decision on Motions for Preliminary Injunction	Feb. 13, 2025	Feb. 13, 2025 Order/Opinion 766 F.Supp.3d 266
46 1:25-cv-10135	Memorandum of Decision on Motions for Preliminary Injunction	Feb. 13, 2025	Feb. 13, 2025 Order/Opinion 766 F.Supp.3d 266
108348619 25-01169	Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts Doe et al. v. Trump et al. U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit	Oct. 3, 2025	Oct. 3, 2025 Order/Opinion 157 F.4th 36
108371014 25-01169	Mandate Doe et al. v. Trump et al. U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit	Nov. 25, 2025	Nov. 25, 2025 Order/Opinion

show / hide documents

Resources

Resources related to this case
Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Immigration Policy Tracking Project: EO: "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" Lucas Guttentag	The Immigration Policy Tracking Project (IPTP) compiles and indexes all identifiable Trump 1.0 and 2.0 immigration policies with key source documents and the current status of each policy. This page…	Jan. 22, 2025	Jan. 22, 2025 https://immpolicytracking.org/...
EO 14160 - Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship President Donald Trump	Declaring that the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United State…	Jan. 20, 2025	Jan. 20, 2025 https://www.federalregister.gov/...

show / hide resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69560579/doe-v-trump/

Last updated July 22, 2026, 4:53 a.m.

ECF Number	Date	Description	Link
1	Jan. 20, 2025	COMPLAINT Against ALL DEFENDANTS against Filing fee: $ 405, receipt number AMADC-10795962 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), filed by O. Doe, Brazilian Worker Center, La Colaborativa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Executive Order), # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Category Form)(Espinoza-Madrigal, Ivan) M (Entered: 01/21/2025) 1 Exhibit (Executive Order) View on RECAP 2 Civil Cover Sheet View on RECAP 3 Category Form View on RECAP	Clearinghouse
2	Jan. 21, 2025	MOTION to Proceed Pseudonymously by O. Doe, Brazilian Worker Center, La Colaborativa.(Albert, Mirian) (Entered: 01/21/2025)	RECAP
3	Jan. 21, 2025	NOTICE of Appearance by Mirian Albert on behalf of O. Doe, Brazilian Worker Center, La Colaborativa (Albert, Mirian) (Entered: 01/21/2025)	RECAP
4	Jan. 21, 2025	ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley. (NMC) (Entered: 01/21/2025)	RECAP
5	Jan. 21, 2025	NOTICE of Appearance by Jacob M. Love on behalf of O. Doe, Brazilian Worker Center, La Colaborativa (Love, Jacob) (Entered: 01/21/2025)	RECAP
6	Jan. 21, 2025	NOTICE of Appearance by Oren M. Sellstrom on behalf of O. Doe, Brazilian Worker Center, La Colaborativa (Sellstrom, Oren) (Entered: 01/21/2025)	RECAP
7	Jan. 21, 2025	Summons Issued as to Michelle King, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, US Department of State, US Social Security Administration. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (LBO) (Entered: 01/21/2025)	RECAP
	Jan. 21, 2025	Notice of Case Assignment
8	Jan. 22, 2025	NOTICE of Appearance by Oren M. Sellstrom on behalf of O. Doe, Brazilian Worker Center, La Colaborativa (Sellstrom, Oren) (Entered: 01/22/2025)	RECAP
9	Jan. 23, 2025	District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re 2 MOTION to Proceed Pseudonymously. The motion of the individual plaintiff to proceed pseudonymously (Doc. No. 2) is ALLOWED. This ruling is subject to de novo review if the defendants oppose the request within seven days of their appearance. (SED) (Entered: 01/23/2025)	RECAP
10	Jan. 23, 2025	MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by O. Doe, Brazilian Worker Center, La Colaborativa.(Love, Jacob) (Entered: 01/23/2025)	RECAP
11	Jan. 23, 2025	MEMORANDUM in Support re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by O. Doe, Brazilian Worker Center, La Colaborativa. (Attachments: # 1 Doe Declaration, # 2 Vega Declaration, # 3 Reason Declaration, # 4 Rodriguez Declaration, # 5 Danaher Declaration, # 6 Molina Declaration, # 7 Galletly Declaration, # 8 Kanstroom Declaration, # 9 Culliton-Gonzalez Declaration, # 10 Merjian Declaration)(Love, Jacob) (Entered: 01/24/2025) 1 Doe Declaration View on RECAP 2 Vega Declaration View on RECAP 3 Reason Declaration View on RECAP 4 Rodriguez Declaration View on RECAP 5 Danaher Declaration View on RECAP 6 Molina Declaration View on RECAP 7 Galletly Declaration View on RECAP 8 Kanstroom Declaration View on RECAP 9 Culliton-Gonzalez Declaration View on RECAP 10 Merjian Declaration View on RECAP	RECAP
	Jan. 23, 2025	Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
12	Jan. 24, 2025	District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The defendants' opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 10 ) is due on January 31, 2025. The plaintiffs may file a reply brief, limited to five pages in length, by February 4, 2025. The Court will hold an in-person hearing on the motion at 10 AM on Friday, February 7, 2025. Counsel for the plaintiffs shall provide a copy of this Order, along with copies of the motion papers, to the following by 5 PM today: Brad P. Rosenberg, Special Counsel, Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Leah Foley, U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts; and the Chief of the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Massachusetts. Electronic service suffices. Motion Hearing set for 2/7/2025 10:00 AM in Courtroom 13 (In person only) before District Judge Leo T. Sorokin.)(SED) (Entered: 01/24/2025)	RECAP
13	Jan. 24, 2025	NOTICE of Appearance by Brad P. Rosenberg on behalf of Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, Marco Rubio, US Social Security Administration, Michelle King (Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 01/24/2025)	RECAP
14	Jan. 24, 2025	CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE by O. Doe, Brazilian Worker Center, La Colaborativa re 12 Order (Albert, Mirian) (Main Document 14 replaced on 1/24/2025 with corrected PDF) (FGD). (Entered: 01/24/2025)	RECAP
15	Jan. 24, 2025	NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Charles Merritt on behalf of Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, Marco Rubio, US Social Security Administration, Michelle King (Merritt, Robert) (Entered: 01/24/2025)	RECAP
	Jan. 24, 2025	Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings
16	Jan. 27, 2025	NOTICE of Appearance by Yuri Fuchs on behalf of Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, Marco Rubio, US Social Security Administration, Michelle King (Fuchs, Yuri) (Entered: 01/27/2025)	RECAP
17	Jan. 28, 2025	Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by O. Doe, Brazilian Worker Center, La Colaborativa.(Sellstrom, Oren) (Entered: 01/28/2025)	RECAP
18	Jan. 28, 2025	District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. New Civil Cases General Procedural ORDER. (FGD) (Entered: 01/28/2025)	RECAP
19	Jan. 29, 2025	District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 17 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages.ALLOWED. Defendants' consolidated opposition brief, due January 31, 2025, is limited to 40 pages in length. The plaintiffs in this case may file a 10-page reply brief by February 4, 2025; the plaintiffs in the related case may file a separate 10-page reply brief by the same date. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (FGD) (Entered: 01/29/2025)	RECAP
20	Jan. 29, 2025	Copy re 19 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, emailed to All Attorneys on related case 25-cv-10139-LTS on 1/29/2025. (FGD) (Entered: 01/29/2025)	RECAP
	Jan. 29, 2025	Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
	Jan. 29, 2025	Copy Mailed
21	Jan. 31, 2025	RESPONSE to Motion re 2 MOTION to Proceed Pseudonymously filed by Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, Marco Rubio, US Social Security Administration, Michelle King. (Fuchs, Yuri) (Entered: 01/31/2025)	RECAP
22	Jan. 31, 2025	Opposition re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, Marco Rubio, US Social Security Administration, Michelle King. (Merritt, Robert) (Entered: 01/31/2025)	RECAP
23	Feb. 3, 2025	NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew James O'Brien on behalf of Immigration Reform Law Institute (O'Brien, Matthew) (Entered: 02/03/2025)	RECAP
24	Feb. 3, 2025	MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by State of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amicus Brief of the State of Tennessee)(Coulam, Andrew) (Entered: 02/03/2025) 1 Exhibit Proposed Amicus Brief of the State of Tennessee View on RECAP	RECAP
25	Feb. 3, 2025	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of James Matthew Rice and Whitney D. Hermandorfer Filing fee: $ 250, receipt number AMADC-10821099 by State of Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of JMR, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of WDH)(Coulam, Andrew) (Entered: 02/03/2025) 1 Exhibit Certificate of JMR View on RECAP 2 Exhibit Certificate of WDH View on RECAP	RECAP
26	Feb. 3, 2025	Consent MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by Immigration Reform Law Institute. (Attachments: # 1 IRLI Amicus Brief)(O'Brien, Matthew) (Entered: 02/03/2025) 1 IRLI Amicus Brief View on RECAP	RECAP
27	Feb. 3, 2025	NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew C. Coulam on behalf of State of Tennessee (Coulam, Andrew) (Entered: 02/03/2025)	RECAP
28	Feb. 4, 2025	District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 25 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added James Matthew Rice, and Whitney D. Hermandorfer. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. To register for a PACER account, go the Pacer website at https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account. You must put the docket number under ADDITIONAL FILER INFORMATION on your form when registering or it will be rejected.Pro Hac Vice Admission Request Instructions https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-pro-hac-vice.htm.A Notice of Appearance must be entered on the docket by the newly admitted attorney. (FGD) (Entered: 02/04/2025)	RECAP
29	Feb. 4, 2025	NOTICE of Appearance by Whitney D. Hermandorfer on behalf of State of Tennessee (Hermandorfer, Whitney) (Entered: 02/04/2025)	RECAP
30	Feb. 4, 2025	District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: The Motions for Leave to submit amicus briefs filed by Tennessee (# 24 ) and Immigration Reform Law Institute (# 26 ) are ALLOWED. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (FGD) (Entered: 02/04/2025)	RECAP
31	Feb. 4, 2025	NOTICE of Appearance by James Matthew Rice on behalf of State of Tennessee (Rice, James) (Entered: 02/04/2025)	RECAP
32	Feb. 4, 2025	AMICUS BRIEF filed by Immigration Reform Law Institute . (O'Brien, Matthew) (Entered: 02/04/2025)	RECAP
33	Feb. 4, 2025	REPLY to Response to 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by O. Doe, Brazilian Worker Center, La Colaborativa. (Albert, Mirian) (Entered: 02/04/2025)	RECAP
34	Feb. 4, 2025	MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Edwin L Meese, III. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amicus Brief)(McNamara, Frank) Modified docket text and docketing event on 2/5/2025, to properly reflect document filed. (FGD) (Entered: 02/04/2025) 1 Exhibit Amicus Brief View on RECAP	RECAP
35	Feb. 4, 2025	Duplicate entry filed in error. Please see entry 34 . (Entered: 02/04/2025) 1 Exhibit Amicus Brief View on RECAP	RECAP
36	Feb. 4, 2025	Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Frank L. McNamara, Jr on behalf of Edwin L Meese, III. (McNamara, Frank) (Entered: 02/04/2025)	RECAP
	Feb. 4, 2025	Order on Motion for Leave to Appear
	Feb. 4, 2025	Order on Motion for Leave to File Document AND Order on Motion for Leave to File Document
	Feb. 4, 2025	Addendum to Motion/Memorandum
37	Feb. 5, 2025	District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 34 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.ALLOWED. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (FGD) (Entered: 02/05/2025)	RECAP
38	Feb. 5, 2025	AMICUS BRIEF filed by State of Tennessee . (Coulam, Andrew) (Entered: 02/05/2025)	RECAP
39	Feb. 5, 2025	NOTICE of Appearance by Ryan P. McLane on behalf of Edwin L Meese, III (McLane, Ryan) (Entered: 02/05/2025)	RECAP
40	Feb. 5, 2025	AMICUS BRIEF filed by Edwin L Meese, III . (McLane, Ryan) (Main Document 40 replaced on 2/6/2025, with corrected PDF). (FGD) (Entered: 02/05/2025)	RECAP
	Feb. 5, 2025	Order on Motion for Leave to File Document
41	Feb. 6, 2025	NOTICE of Appearance by Eric Hamilton on behalf of Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, Marco Rubio, US Social Security Administration, Michelle King (Hamilton, Eric) (Entered: 02/06/2025)	RECAP
42	Feb. 6, 2025	SUMMONS Returned Executed as to US Attorney by La Colaborativa, Brazilian Worker Center, O. Doe. All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Service on the United States and All Defendants)(Love, Jacob) (Entered: 02/06/2025) 1 Affidavit of Service on the United States and All Defendants View on RECAP	RECAP
43	Feb. 7, 2025	Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: Motion Hearing held on 2/7/2025 re ( 10 in 1:25-cv-10135-LTS) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and ( 3 in 1:25-cv-10139-LTS) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. The court hears arguments on both motions for preliminary injunction. The motions are taken under advisement. (Court Reporter: Rachel Lopez at raeufp@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Mirian Albert, Oren M. Sellstrom, and Jacob M. Love for plaintiffs in case 25cv10135-LTS, Shankar Duraiswamy, Gerard J. Cedrone, Jared B. Cohen, and Irina Trasovan for plaintiffs in case 25cv10139-LTS, Brad P. Rosenberg, and Eric Hamilton for the defendants.) Associated Cases: 1:25-cv-10135-LTS, 1:25-cv-10139-LTS(SED) (Entered: 02/07/2025)	RECAP
	Feb. 7, 2025	Motion Hearing
44	Feb. 13, 2025	Transcript of Motion Hearing held on February 7, 2025, before Judge Leo T. Sorokin. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Rachel Lopez at raeufp@gmail.com. Redaction Request due 3/6/2025. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/17/2025. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/14/2025. Associated Cases: 1:25-cv-10135-LTS, 1:25-cv-10139-LTS(DRK) (Entered: 02/13/2025)	RECAP
45	Feb. 13, 2025	NOTICE is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above-captioned matter. Counsel are referred to the Court's Transcript Redaction Policy, available on the court website at https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/transcripts.htm Associated Cases: 1:25-cv-10135-LTS, 1:25-cv-10139-LTS(DRK) (Entered: 02/13/2025)	RECAP
46	Feb. 13, 2025	District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Associated Cases: 1:25-cv-10139-LTS, 1:25-cv-10135-LTS(FGD) (Entered: 02/13/2025)	Clearinghouse
47	Feb. 13, 2025	District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. (FGD) (Entered: 02/13/2025)	RECAP
	Feb. 13, 2025	Notice of Filing of Official Transcript
48	Feb. 19, 2025	NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to 46 Memorandum & ORDER, Terminate Motions, 47 Preliminary Injunction by Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, Marco Rubio, US Social Security Administration, Michelle King. ( (Fee Status: US Government)) NOTICE TO COUNSEL: A Transcript Report/Order Form, which can be downloaded from the First Circuit Court of Appeals web site at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov MUST be completed and submitted to the Court of Appeals. Counsel shall register for a First Circuit CM/ECF Appellate Filer Account at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf. Counsel shall also review the First Circuit requirements for electronic filing by visiting the CM/ECF Information section at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/efiling.htm. US District Court Clerk to deliver official record to Court of Appeals by 3/11/2025. (Fuchs, Yuri) (Entered: 02/19/2025)	RECAP
49	Feb. 19, 2025	Certified and Transmitted Abbreviated Electronic Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 48 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. (MAP) (Entered: 02/19/2025)	RECAP
50	Feb. 19, 2025	USCA Case Number 25-1169 for 48 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by US Social Security Administration, US Department of State, Michelle King, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump. (MAP) (Entered: 02/19/2025)	RECAP
51	Feb. 19, 2025	NOTICE of Appearance by Michael P. Sady on behalf of Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, Marco Rubio, US Social Security Administration, Michelle King (Sady, Michael) (Entered: 02/19/2025)	RECAP
	Feb. 19, 2025	USCA Case Number
52	Feb. 20, 2025	NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Michael P. Sady (Sady, Michael) (Entered: 02/20/2025)	RECAP
53	March 19, 2025	Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to May 12, 2025 to File Answer re [1] Complaint, by Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, Marco Rubio, US Social Security Administration, Michelle King. (Attachments: (1) Exhibit Proposed Order)(Fuchs, Yuri) 1 Exhibit Proposed Order View on RECAP	RECAP
54	March 20, 2025	District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 53 Assented to Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint.ALLOWED. Michelle King answer due 5/12/2025; Marco Rubio answer due 5/12/2025; Donald J. Trump answer due 5/12/2025; US Department of State answer due 5/12/2025; US Social Security Administration answer due 5/12/2025. (FGD) (Entered: 03/20/2025)	RECAP
	March 20, 2025	Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
55	April 24, 2025	MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Immigration Reform Law Institute.(O'Brien, Matthew) (Entered: 04/24/2025)	RECAP
56	April 25, 2025	District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re 55 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney. ALLOWED. (CEH) (Entered: 04/25/2025)	RECAP
	April 25, 2025	Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney
57	May 1, 2025	Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to June 11, 2025 to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Michelle King, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, US Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fuchs, Yuri) (Entered: 05/01/2025)	RECAP
58	May 2, 2025	District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re 57 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to June 11, 2025 to File Answer re 1 Complaint.ALLOWED. (SED) (Entered: 05/02/2025)	RECAP
	May 2, 2025	Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
59	June 3, 2025	Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to July 11, 2025 to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Michelle King, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, US Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fuchs, Yuri) (Entered: 06/03/2025) 1 Text of Proposed Order View on PACER	RECAP
60	June 3, 2025	District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 59 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to July 11, 2025 to File Answer re 1 Complain.ALLOWED. Michelle King answer due 7/11/2025; Marco Rubio answer due 7/11/2025; Donald J. Trump answer due 7/11/2025; US Department of State answer due 7/11/2025; US Social Security Administration answer due 7/11/2025. (FGD) (Entered: 06/03/2025)	RECAP
	June 3, 2025	Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
61	June 11, 2025	NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Jacob M. Love (Love, Jacob) (Entered: 06/11/2025)	RECAP
62	July 3, 2025	ORDER of USCA as to 48 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by US Social Security Administration, US Department of State, Michelle King, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump.The defendants-appellants have filed a Motion for Supplemental Briefing Order (the "Motion") to this court in connection with New Jersey v. Trump, No. 25-1170. That case involves the defendants-appellants' appeal of a February 13, 2025 order by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The District Court's order granted a "universal" preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of Executive Order No. 14,160, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." Exec. Order No. 14,160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (Jan. 20, 2025). That appeal is pending in this court, and oral argument is scheduled in this court on August 1, 2025. The Motion asks us to order supplemental briefing on the effect of the United States Supreme Court's order in Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. __ (2025), on this appeal to "allow this Court to 'move expeditiously to ensure that... the injunctio[n] comport[s] with' the Supreme Court's decision." They propose a schedule in which the supplemental briefs "would be due on July 11" so that "[t]he Court would then be positioned to rule on whether the nationwide injunction is broader than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs, an issue this Court declined to consider in initially ruling on the government's stay motion." They further assert that "adopting this course would comport with the Supreme Court's instruction that the lower courts should 'move expeditiously' to resolve outstanding issues about the scope of the injunction." The plaintiffs-appellees oppose the Motion. In urging us to grant the Motion, the defendants-appellants state that "[i]f the district courts existing decision is insufficient to establish" that the universal injunction entered in this case comports with the complete-relief principle and other principles of equity, "then the universal scope of that injunction is appropriately stayed." There is no motion, however, pending before this court for a stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction on appeal in No. 25-1170, which injunction the defendants-appellants appear to agree is not stayed at present. To be sure, on February 27, 2025, the defendants-appellants did file a motion in our court to stay the injunction, as they note in the Motion. But we denied the stay and, in the opinion doing so, we declined to address the "narrower relief" proposed by the defendants-appellants in their stay motion to this court because they had failed to raise it in opposing the grant of a nationwide preliminary injunction in the preliminary injunction proceedings themselves or in requesting a stay of that injunction from the District Court. Moreover, CASA provides fresh guidance regarding the equitable powers of federal courts. See CASA, 606 U.S. at __, slip op. at 17-18. Thus, in aid of our consideration of the issues on appeal, and consistent with the Supreme Court's instruction that "[t]he lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate" and "move expeditiously" to ensure that the injunction comports with the "principles of equity" described in CASA, id. slip op. at 19, 26 (emphasis added), we conclude that it is prudent to remand to the District Court, while retaining our jurisdiction over the appeal. The remand is for the limited purpose of enabling the District Court to consider the bearing, if any, of that guidance in CASA on the scope of the preliminary injunction in No. 25-1170 and to act accordingly. In doing so, we expect the District Court to address any arguments that the parties may advance with respect to what grounds may now be asserted regarding the injunction's scope. For these reasons, the Motion is denied, and the matter is remanded to the District Court for the limited purposes described herein, with this court retaining jurisdiction. We understand the District Court will act promptly in accordance with the briefing schedule that it entered on July 2, 2025. (MAP) (Entered: 07/06/2025)	RECAP
62	July 3, 2025	ORDER of USCA as to 48 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by US Social Security Administration, US Department of State, Michelle King, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump.The defendants-appellants have filed a Motion for Supplemental Briefing Order (the "Motion") to this court in connection with New Jersey v. Trump, No. 25-1170. That case involves the defendants-appellants' appeal of a February 13, 2025 order by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The District Court's order granted a "universal" preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of Executive Order No. 14,160, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." Exec. Order No. 14,160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (Jan. 20, 2025). That appeal is pending in this court, and oral argument is scheduled in this court on August 1, 2025. The Motion asks us to order supplemental briefing on the effect of the United States Supreme Court's order in Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. __ (2025), on this appeal to "allow this Court to 'move expeditiously to ensure that... the injunctio[n] comport[s] with' the Supreme Court's decision." They propose a schedule in which the supplemental briefs "would be due on July 11" so that "[t]he Court would then be positioned to rule on whether the nationwide injunction is broader than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs, an issue this Court declined to consider in initially ruling on the government's stay motion." They further assert that "adopting this course would comport with the Supreme Court's instruction that the lower courts should 'move expeditiously' to resolve outstanding issues about the scope of the injunction." The plaintiffs-appellees oppose the Motion. In urging us to grant the Motion, the defendants-appellants state that "[i]f the district courts existing decision is insufficient to establish" that the universal injunction entered in this case comports with the complete-relief principle and other principles of equity, "then the universal scope of that injunction is appropriately stayed." There is no motion, however, pending before this court for a stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction on appeal in No. 25-1170, which injunction the defendants-appellants appear to agree is not stayed at present. To be sure, on February 27, 2025, the defendants-appellants did file a motion in our court to stay the injunction, as they note in the Motion. But we denied the stay and, in the opinion doing so, we declined to address the "narrower relief" proposed by the defendants-appellants in their stay motion to this court because they had failed to raise it in opposing the grant of a nationwide preliminary injunction in the preliminary injunction proceedings themselves or in requesting a stay of that injunction from the District Court. Moreover, CASA provides fresh guidance regarding the equitable powers of federal courts. See CASA, 606 U.S. at __, slip op. at 17-18. Thus, in aid of our consideration of the issues on appeal, and consistent with the Supreme Court's instruction that "[t]he lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate" and "move expeditiously" to ensure that the injunction comports with the "principles of equity" described in CASA, id. slip op. at 19, 26 (emphasis added), we conclude that it is prudent to remand to the District Court, while retaining our jurisdiction over the appeal. The remand is for the limited purpose of enabling the District Court to consider the bearing, if any, of that guidance in CASA on the scope of the preliminary injunction in No. 25-1170 and to act accordingly. In doing so, we expect the District Court to address any arguments that the parties may advance with respect to what grounds may now be asserted regarding the injunction's scope. For these reasons, the Motion is denied, and the matter is remanded to the District Court for the limited purposes described herein, with this court retaining jurisdiction. We understand the District Court will act promptly in accordance with the briefing schedule that it entered on July 2, 2025. (MAP) (Entered: 07/06/2025)	RECAP
62	July 3, 2025	ORDER of USCA as to 48 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by US Social Security Administration, US Department of State, Michelle King, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump.The defendants-appellants have filed a Motion for Supplemental Briefing Order (the "Motion") to this court in connection with New Jersey v. Trump, No. 25-1170. That case involves the defendants-appellants' appeal of a February 13, 2025 order by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The District Court's order granted a "universal" preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of Executive Order No. 14,160, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." Exec. Order No. 14,160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (Jan. 20, 2025). That appeal is pending in this court, and oral argument is scheduled in this court on August 1, 2025. The Motion asks us to order supplemental briefing on the effect of the United States Supreme Court's order in Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. __ (2025), on this appeal to "allow this Court to 'move expeditiously to ensure that... the injunctio[n] comport[s] with' the Supreme Court's decision." They propose a schedule in which the supplemental briefs "would be due on July 11" so that "[t]he Court would then be positioned to rule on whether the nationwide injunction is broader than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs, an issue this Court declined to consider in initially ruling on the government's stay motion." They further assert that "adopting this course would comport with the Supreme Court's instruction that the lower courts should 'move expeditiously' to resolve outstanding issues about the scope of the injunction." The plaintiffs-appellees oppose the Motion. In urging us to grant the Motion, the defendants-appellants state that "[i]f the district courts existing decision is insufficient to establish" that the universal injunction entered in this case comports with the complete-relief principle and other principles of equity, "then the universal scope of that injunction is appropriately stayed." There is no motion, however, pending before this court for a stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction on appeal in No. 25-1170, which injunction the defendants-appellants appear to agree is not stayed at present. To be sure, on February 27, 2025, the defendants-appellants did file a motion in our court to stay the injunction, as they note in the Motion. But we denied the stay and, in the opinion doing so, we declined to address the "narrower relief" proposed by the defendants-appellants in their stay motion to this court because they had failed to raise it in opposing the grant of a nationwide preliminary injunction in the preliminary injunction proceedings themselves or in requesting a stay of that injunction from the District Court. Moreover, CASA provides fresh guidance regarding the equitable powers of federal courts. See CASA, 606 U.S. at __, slip op. at 17-18. Thus, in aid of our consideration of the issues on appeal, and consistent with the Supreme Court's instruction that "[t]he lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate" and "move expeditiously" to ensure that the injunction comports with the "principles of equity" described in CASA, id. slip op. at 19, 26 (emphasis added), we conclude that it is prudent to remand to the District Court, while retaining our jurisdiction over the appeal. The remand is for the limited purpose of enabling the District Court to consider the bearing, if any, of that guidance in CASA on the scope of the preliminary injunction in No. 25-1170 and to act accordingly. In doing so, we expect the District Court to address any arguments that the parties may advance with respect to what grounds may now be asserted regarding the injunction's scope. For these reasons, the Motion is denied, and the matter is remanded to the District Court for the limited purposes described herein, with this court retaining jurisdiction. We understand the District Court will act promptly in accordance with the briefing schedule that it entered on July 2, 2025. (MAP) (Entered: 07/06/2025)	RECAP
62	July 3, 2025	ORDER of USCA as to 48 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by US Social Security Administration, US Department of State, Michelle King, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump.The defendants-appellants have filed a Motion for Supplemental Briefing Order (the "Motion") to this court in connection with New Jersey v. Trump, No. 25-1170. That case involves the defendants-appellants' appeal of a February 13, 2025 order by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The District Court's order granted a "universal" preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of Executive Order No. 14,160, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." Exec. Order No. 14,160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (Jan. 20, 2025). That appeal is pending in this court, and oral argument is scheduled in this court on August 1, 2025. The Motion asks us to order supplemental briefing on the effect of the United States Supreme Court's order in Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. __ (2025), on this appeal to "allow this Court to 'move expeditiously to ensure that... the injunctio[n] comport[s] with' the Supreme Court's decision." They propose a schedule in which the supplemental briefs "would be due on July 11" so that "[t]he Court would then be positioned to rule on whether the nationwide injunction is broader than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs, an issue this Court declined to consider in initially ruling on the government's stay motion." They further assert that "adopting this course would comport with the Supreme Court's instruction that the lower courts should 'move expeditiously' to resolve outstanding issues about the scope of the injunction." The plaintiffs-appellees oppose the Motion. In urging us to grant the Motion, the defendants-appellants state that "[i]f the district courts existing decision is insufficient to establish" that the universal injunction entered in this case comports with the complete-relief principle and other principles of equity, "then the universal scope of that injunction is appropriately stayed." There is no motion, however, pending before this court for a stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction on appeal in No. 25-1170, which injunction the defendants-appellants appear to agree is not stayed at present. To be sure, on February 27, 2025, the defendants-appellants did file a motion in our court to stay the injunction, as they note in the Motion. But we denied the stay and, in the opinion doing so, we declined to address the "narrower relief" proposed by the defendants-appellants in their stay motion to this court because they had failed to raise it in opposing the grant of a nationwide preliminary injunction in the preliminary injunction proceedings themselves or in requesting a stay of that injunction from the District Court. Moreover, CASA provides fresh guidance regarding the equitable powers of federal courts. See CASA, 606 U.S. at __, slip op. at 17-18. Thus, in aid of our consideration of the issues on appeal, and consistent with the Supreme Court's instruction that "[t]he lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate" and "move expeditiously" to ensure that the injunction comports with the "principles of equity" described in CASA, id. slip op. at 19, 26 (emphasis added), we conclude that it is prudent to remand to the District Court, while retaining our jurisdiction over the appeal. The remand is for the limited purpose of enabling the District Court to consider the bearing, if any, of that guidance in CASA on the scope of the preliminary injunction in No. 25-1170 and to act accordingly. In doing so, we expect the District Court to address any arguments that the parties may advance with respect to what grounds may now be asserted regarding the injunction's scope. For these reasons, the Motion is denied, and the matter is remanded to the District Court for the limited purposes described herein, with this court retaining jurisdiction. We understand the District Court will act promptly in accordance with the briefing schedule that it entered on July 2, 2025. (MAP) (Entered: 07/06/2025)	RECAP
63	July 9, 2025	NOTICE of Appearance by Kathleen Jacobs on behalf of Michelle King, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, US Social Security Administration (Jacobs, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/09/2025)	RECAP
63	July 9, 2025	NOTICE of Appearance by Kathleen Jacobs on behalf of Michelle King, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, US Social Security Administration (Jacobs, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/09/2025)	RECAP
63	July 9, 2025	NOTICE of Appearance by Kathleen Jacobs on behalf of Michelle King, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, US Social Security Administration (Jacobs, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/09/2025)	RECAP
64	July 9, 2025	Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to August 11, 2025 to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Michelle King, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, US Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/09/2025)	RECAP
64	July 9, 2025	Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to August 11, 2025 to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Michelle King, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, US Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/09/2025)	RECAP
64	July 9, 2025	Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to August 11, 2025 to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Michelle King, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, US Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/09/2025)	RECAP
65	July 10, 2025	District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 64 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to August 11, 2025 to File Answer re 1 Complaint.ALLOWED. Michelle King answer due 8/11/2025; Marco Rubio answer due 8/11/2025; Donald J. Trump answer due 8/11/2025; US Department of State answer due 8/11/2025; US Social Security Administration answer due 8/11/2025. (FGD) (Entered: 07/10/2025)	RECAP
	July 10, 2025	Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
	July 10, 2025	Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
	July 10, 2025	Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
66	July 11, 2025	NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Yuri Fuchs (Fuchs, Yuri) (Entered: 07/11/2025)	RECAP
67	July 15, 2025	NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Whitney D. Hermandorfer (Hermandorfer, Whitney) (Entered: 07/15/2025)	RECAP
68	Aug. 8, 2025	Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to 9/10/2025 to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Michelle King, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, US Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/08/2025) 1 Text of Proposed Order View on PACER	RECAP
69	Aug. 11, 2025	District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 68 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to 9/10/2025 to File Answer re 1 Complaint.ALLOWED. Michelle King answer due 9/10/2025; Marco Rubio answer due 9/10/2025; Donald J. Trump answer due 9/10/2025; US Department of State answer due 9/10/2025; US Social Security Administration answer due 9/10/2025. (FGD) (Entered: 08/11/2025)	RECAP
	Aug. 11, 2025	Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
70	Sept. 4, 2025	Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to October 10, 2025 to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Michelle King, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, US Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/04/2025)	RECAP
71	Sept. 5, 2025	District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re 70 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to October 10, 2025 to File Answer re 1 Complaint. ALLOWED. (SED) (Entered: 09/05/2025)	RECAP
	Sept. 5, 2025	Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
72	Oct. 1, 2025	Assented to MOTION to Stay Answer Deadline by Michelle King, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump, US Department of State, US Social Security Administration. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Merritt, Robert) (Entered: 10/01/2025) 1 Text of Proposed Order View on PACER	RECAP

show / hide docket entries

Case Details

State / Territory:

Massachusetts

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Special Collection(s):

Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government

Birthright Citizenship

Key Dates

Filing Date: Jan. 20, 2025

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

An expectant mother who is in the U.S. lawfully on Temporary Protected Status and two organizations, Brazilian Worker Center and La Colaborativa, whose members are pregnant or who plan to have families in the future, and whose children would be targeted by the Executive Order limiting birthright citizenship.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Non-profit NON-religious organization

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Federal

United States