Filed Date: Jan. 20, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
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 Jan. 20, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Thien Le, a Vietnamese citizen legally residing in the U.S. on an H-4 visa and 33-weeks pregnant at the time of filing this lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed against President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State, the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS); it was assigned to District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong.
The plaintiff alleged that the Executive Order violated the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), both of which guarantee citizenship to those born on U.S. soil. She also alleged that the Executive Order violated the Administrative Procedure Act. She sought a declaratory judgment stating that the Executive Order was unlawful and a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the defendants from enforcing the Executive Order.
On Jan. 21, 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, and the following day, she filed an amended complaint (which is under seal, so the details are unknown to the Clearinghouse at this time). On Jan. 23, in light of a decision in State of Washington v. Trump, in which the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the government from enforcing or implementing arts of the same Executive Oder challenged in this case, Judge Frimpong asked the parties in this case to show cause as to why this action should not be stayed. The parties then filed a joint stipulation asking the court to hold in abeyance briefing and adjudication of the plaintiff’s ex parte application for entry of a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction. The Court ordered the briefing and adjudication to be held in abeyance and vacated the upcoming deadlines and hearing regarding the plaintiff's application and the court's order to show cause.
The parties then filed a joint stipulation to stay this case. On Feb. 14, 2025, Judge Frimpong agreed to stay this case pending further status updates from the parties.
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, 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 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 district courts to consider that question in the first instance.
As ordered by the district court, the parties filed a status report on the effect of Casa Inc. v. Trump on July 2. On July 8, the court ordered the case to remain stayed pending further developments in Casa Inc. on remand from the Supreme Court.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Nicole Brigstock (4/21/2025)
Jeremiah Price (6/30/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69560620/parties/thien-le-v-donald-j-trump/
Nguyen, Vy Duc (California)
Appellate, Oil (California)
Attorney, OIL-DCS Trial (California)
Ross, Jonathan Kevin (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69560620/thien-le-v-donald-j-trump/
Last updated Aug. 22, 2025, 3:35 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Birthright Citizenship)
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 20, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A Vietnamese citizen legally residing in the U.S. on an H-4 visa and 33-weeks pregnant at the time of filing this lawsuit
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
United States of America, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties