Case: State of Washington v. Trump
2:25-cv-00127 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Filed Date: Jan. 21, 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 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 on January 21, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs included four states: Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. The lawsuit named as defendants President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, the Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Agriculture. The case was assigned to District Judge John C. Coughenour.
The plaintiffs alleged that the Executive Order violated the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a). They sought a declaratory judgment against the administration and an emergency Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the defendants from implementing or enforcing the Executive Order, which was scheduled to go into effect on Feb. 19, 2025.
Simultaneously with the complaint the plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. At the resulting motion hearing on Jan. 23, 2025, Judge Coughenour (a Reagan appointee) temporarily (for 14 days) enjoined operation of the EO nationwide; news reports quoted him describing it as "blatantly unconstitutional." 764 F.Supp.3d 1050.
On Jan. 27, under FRCP 42(a)(2), the court consolidated this case with Aleman v. Trump, another suit challenging EO 14160 in the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs filed a motion for the court to certify this suit as a class action with the class defined as "[a]ll pregnant persons residing in Washington State who will give birth in the United States on or after Feb. 19, 2025, where neither parent of the expected child is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the child’s birth; and, all children residing in Washington State who are born in the United States on or after Feb. 19, 2025, where neither of their parents is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the child's birth."
The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on January 27, and the defendants filed a response opposing the injunction on Jan. 31.
Iowa and 17 other states filed an amicus brief opposing the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on Feb. 3, arguing that the Executive Order complies with the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and that it reduces harm to the states by disincentivizing "illegal immigration" and "birth tourism."
On Feb. 4, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding two individual plaintiffs--expectant mothers who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents--who sought class certification for similarly situated persons.
After holding a hearing on Feb. 6, Judge Coughenour granted the plaintiffs' motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction and enjoined the defendants from enforcing or implementing the Executive Order nationwide. 765 F.Supp.3d 1142. That same day, the individual plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the court's order, specifically asking the court to grant provisional class certification and to order class-wide relief. Shortly thereafter, the defendants appealed the court's order granting the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (docket no. 25-807). The Court of Appeals set briefing for March and April.
Judge Coughenour then stayed this matter in the district court, including all outstanding motions, pending the outcome of the defendants' appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiffs then requested that the court deny the defendants’ motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction.
In the Ninth Circuit, the defendants sought an emergency stay of the nationwide scope of the preliminary injunction. They argued that the plaintiff states lack standing and that the injunction is overbroad. They asked the court to limit the injunction only to the individual plaintiffs in this case. On Feb. 19, the Ninth Circuit denied the defendants' emergency motion for a partial stay of the district court’s Feb. 6, 2025, preliminary injunction, finding that they had not made a “strong showing that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits” of this appeal.
On February 13, the State of Tennessee filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit in support of the defendants-appellants, arguing that the court should stay the preliminary injunction and rejecting the plaintiffs' interpretation of birthright citizenship because "[c]onferring United States citizenship requires a more meaningful connection than mere presence by happenstance or illegality." A coalition of 18 members of Congress--led by Rep. Jim Jordan--who serve on the Judiciary Committee filed an amicus brief arguing that the court should grant the defendants-appellants' emergency motion to stay in part the District Court's preliminary injunction. Amicus briefs were also filed in support of the defendants-appellants by the State of Texas; Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III; and the State of Iowa and 18 other States.
In the Ninth Circuit, briefing was due in March and April, and the case was scheduled for oral argument on June 4, 2025. After oral argument, the court decided to hold the case in abeyance until a decision was reached in another case, Casa Inc. v. Trump, that was currently pending in the Supreme Court.
In the United States Supreme Court, on March 13, 2025, Acting Solicitor General Harris filed an application for a partial stay of the district court's injunctions in this case, in CASA Inc. v. Trump, and in State of New Jersey v. Trump, two other cases challenging the executive order. Arguing that the injunctions improperly grant relief to non-parties and prevent the executive branch from taking steps to implement the Executive Order, the Solicitor General asked the Supreme Court to stay the preliminary injunction in this case "except as to the two individual respondents—and, if the Court concludes that the state respondents are proper parties, as to individuals who are born or reside in those States."
On March 14, 2025, the same coalition of members of Congress that filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit filed another amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting the government's application for stays in these three cases, as did the State of Tennessee. On March 28, 2025, the Attorney General of Iowa, on behalf of Iowa and 19 other states, also filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting the government.
The Supreme Court consolidated the applications for partial stays in the three birthright citizenship cases pending before it and scheduled oral argument for May 15, 2025. The Court deferred resolution of the stays/applications pending its decision--which was issued on June 27, 2025. 145 S.Ct. 2540. Justice Barrett, writing for a 6-3 majority (with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting), found that "universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts." Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have jurisdiction over "all suits in equity," which the Court had previously held "encompasses only those sorts of equitable remedies traditionally accorded by courts of equity at our country's inception." Here, the Court found that universal injunctions were not "sufficiently analogous" to any relief offered by the court of equity in England at the time of the founding.
Instead, the Court focused on the requirement that parties (not individuals who are not parties before the court) receive complete relief. It held that an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the EO against the particular individual plaintiffs in this case gave them complete relief, so the challenged injunctions were certainly overbroad with regard to the individual plaintiffs. However, the Court declined to consider whether the injunctions were overbroad with regard to the state plaintiffs, leaving that question to the lower courts to consider (expeditiously) in the first instance. The Court also left open the possibility of a nationwide injunction in cases with a certified nationwide class. Therefore, the Court issued a partial stay of the preliminary injunctions but "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue." Since the overbreadth issue has not yet been resolved, the injunctions remain in effect.
Back in the Ninth Circuit, on June 27, the court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs explaining what effect the Supreme Court's decision had on the issues presented in this case.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs filed a motion in the district court asking it to lift the stay pending appeal with regard to its motion for class certification (which had not been acted on by the court before it stayed the case pending appeal). The court rejected the request on July 3, stating that " it would be premature for this Court to lift its stay when the Ninth Circuit has already moved expeditiously to determine the scope of the preliminary injunction." Therefore, the case remained stayed in the district court while the Ninth Circuit decided the appeal.
On July 23, 2025, the Ninth Circuit (with Judge Bumatay dissenting) issued an opinion upholding the District Court's injunction. 2025 WL 2061447. The court ruled that "because State Plaintiffs have standing and are likely to succeed in demonstrating that the Executive Order is unconstitutional, we affirm the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction and its determination that a universal preliminary injunction is necessary to give the States complete relief on their claims." Looking first at standing, the court found that "the States have shown that the loss of reimbursements, funding, and additional expenses incurred by the development of a new system to determine eligibility are concrete and imminent injuries-in-fact, traceable to the Executive Order, and redressable by an injunction" and that "the automatic and direct effect of denying citizenship to children affected by the Executive Order renders them ineligible for federal programs and for Social Security Numbers, which results in a quantifiable loss of funding to the States."
Looking to the merits, the court found that the "plain text and ordinary meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, controlling precedent interpreting the Citizenship Clause, drafting history, and most post-ratification public understanding weigh in favor of Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Citizenship Clause."
Finally, the court examined the scope of the universal injunction that the District Court had issued. The court found that the District Court had not abused its discretion in issuing a nationwide injunction, since "the States would be obligated to overhaul their existing systems for determining citizenship and incur an administrative burden even if the injunction were narrowed as Defendants suggest." The court found that without a nationwide injunction, the States would still suffer harm, and therefore the injunction fell within the "complete relief to the parties" principle announced by the Supreme Court in Casa Inc. v. Trump. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the lower court.
On September 26, 2025, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the Supreme Court to hear an appeal in this case and the related case of Barbara v. Trump in New Hampshire. He described the common view of the Citizenship Clause as conferring universal birthright citizenship as a "mistaken view" with "destructive consequences." Four justices would have to agree to hear the case on the merits, which would likely be argued in 2026.
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 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 the EO conflicts with both the Citizenship Clause and 8 U.S.C. § 1401. 2026 WL 1870543.
On July 1, 2026, the Supreme Court denied the government's petition for a writ of certiorari in this case, leaving the Ninth Circuit's decision affirming the preliminary injunction in place. In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Barbara, which resolved the principal constitutional question presented by the petition, the case will proceed in the lower courts consistent with that decision.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Niam Vora (7/1/2026)
Nicole Brigstock (4/21/2025)
Jeremiah Price (6/30/2025)
Taite Puhala (12/7/2025)
Related Cases
Franco Aleman v. Trump, Western District of Washington (2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69561931/parties/state-of-washington-v-trump/
Adams, Matt (Washington)
Attorney, Matt Adams,
Adams, Matthew Hyrum
Adams, John Christian
Ard, Joel B (Washington)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69561931/state-of-washington-v-trump/
Last updated Sept. 15, 2026, 4:42 a.m.
Docket for: State of Washington v. Trump
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 21, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Numerous states and two individual plaintiffs who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents and who seek class certification for a class of like-situated individuals.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
Federal
United States
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Western District of Washington 2:25-cv-00127
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 25-00807
Supreme Court of the United States 24A885
Available Documents:
U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Case Summary of State of Washington v. Trump, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/45964/ (last updated 12/7/2025).