/>iOn June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Garland v. CASA de Maryland that narrows federal courts’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions. The ruling comes in the context of legal challenges to Executive Order 14160, which seeks to limit birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants and nonimmigrant visa holders.
Although the Court did not decide whether the executive order is constitutional, it held that lower courts may only provide injunctive relief to the actual parties involved in litigation. This change restricts the use of nationwide blocks on federal policy and has practical implications for U.S. employers whose workforce includes foreign nationals or mixed-status families.
Background: Executive Order 14160
President Trump issued Executive Order 14160 on Jan. 20, 2025. It directs federal agencies to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or active-duty member of the U.S. Armed Forces. The order prompted multiple lawsuits challenging its constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment.
While several federal district courts issued preliminary injunctions blocking the order’s enforcement, the Supreme Court has now clarified that such injunctions cannot extend beyond the named plaintiffs or organizational members specifically covered in each case.
To avoid immediate disruption, the Court granted a 30-day pause before the order may be enforced in jurisdictions not protected by an active lawsuit.
Where Is the Executive Order Currently Blocked?
Active injunctions cover the following 22 states, plus the District of Columbia and the city of San Francisco, based on their participation in multi-state litigation. Individuals born in these jurisdictions remain protected from the executive order for now:
Covered States:
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Nevada
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- Oregon
- Rhode Island
- Vermont
- Washington
- Wisconsin
Covered Municipalities:
- District of Columbia
- City of San Francisco
These jurisdictions joined one of four key lawsuits filed in federal courts in Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington, and New Hampshire. Those cases remain active and are expected to proceed to full hearings on the merits of the executive order’s constitutionality.
States Not Covered by Active Legal Challenges
In contrast, the following 28 states did not join any of the pending lawsuits and are not currently protected by court-ordered injunctions. Barring further legal action, the executive order may be enforced in these states after the 30-day delay expires:
Uncovered States:
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arkansas
- Florida
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Pennsylvania
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Virginia
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
While Wisconsin joined earlier litigation, its standing under the narrowed injunction framework may be subject to review depending on how lower courts interpret organizational and class membership post-ruling.
Are More Lawsuits Expected?
Given the Court’s limitation on nationwide relief, additional lawsuits may be filed in states not currently covered. Civil rights organizations, advocacy groups, and affected individuals may bring new legal challenges to extend protections on a state-by-state or plaintiff-by-plaintiff basis.
Employers should be aware that the legal landscape may shift rapidly, especially as courts clarify who qualifies for relief under existing injunctions and whether new cases will result in further geographic coverage.
Key Considerations for Employers
While the executive order does not impose direct compliance obligations on employers, its implementation may impact a future generation of U.S.-born children whose eligibility for citizenship—and later work authorization—may be called into question.
- Avoid Unlawful Inquiries: Employers may not inquire into an employee’s or applicant’s immigration or parental status in ways that could violate anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act or Title VII.
- Stay Informed on State-Level Variations: Multistate employers should track litigation in the states where they operate. Birthright citizenship—and the documentation associated with it—might vary across jurisdictions.
- Plan for HR and Benefits Questions: Employees may seek guidance regarding their children’s eligibility for health insurance, dependent care, or other benefits. HR teams should refer legal or immigration-related questions to counsel.
- Support Affected Employees: Where lawful and appropriate, employers may wish to provide access to legal resources or employee assistance programs to help affected families understand their rights.
- Coordinate with Legal Counsel: Companies with operations in uncovered states may wish to assess risk exposure and prepare for possible requests for documentation, public benefits eligibility verification, or identity validation linked to the order.
Takeaways
The Supreme Court’s decision redefines how federal policy can be challenged—and where. While it does not determine the fate of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, it limits the reach of lower court rulings, shifting the burden of protection to individual states and plaintiffs.
