EXCLUSIVE: New Class Action Says Trump Birthright Citizenship Order Puts Children's Passports and Social Security Numbers at Risk, Complaint Obtained by TDFP Shows
Six noncitizen parents filed a nationwide class action in federal court in Maryland on Wednesday asking a judge to strike down President Donald Trump's second executive order limiting birthright citizenship, arguing that nothing in the order confines it to babies born after it was signed and that new agency guidance threatens the passports, Social Security numbers and benefits of children who are already U.S. citizens, according to a 47-page complaint obtained by The Digital Free Press.
The suit, Blanca v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-04295, was filed Oct. 14 in the Greenbelt division of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by Georgetown Law's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project. The docket shows it was assigned the same day to U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman, who in September blocked the order for a narrower class of children in a related case. Summonses were issued Thursday; no motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction had been docketed as of Thursday afternoon. The plaintiffs, who sue under pseudonyms on behalf of their children and future children, name Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Attorney General Todd Blanche and the heads of DHS, USCIS, Social Security, USDA, HHS and HUD. TDFP found no prior public reporting of the filing.
WHAT THE 2026 BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER DOES
Executive Order 14418, signed Aug. 6, came five weeks after the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Barbara on June 30 that children born to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily in the United States are citizens at birth. The order directs agencies not to issue documents recognizing citizenship to a child when neither parent is a citizen and a parent is an "alien enemy," a "foreign government employee," or engaged in "a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship," including paying a U.S. surrogate. The order describes those categories as children "who do not fall within the rule of birthright citizenship as announced by the Supreme Court"; that is the administration's position, which the complaint disputes.
The complaint calls the order the president's "second attempt to strip birthright citizenship from children guaranteed it by the Constitution." It argues the only exceptions are the four recognized in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 and reaffirmed in Barbara, and that the new categories "are of the President's own invention." The suit does not challenge the order's provisions on children of ambassadors or children born in U.S. territories.
"NOTHING IN THE TEXT" LIMITS IT TO FUTURE BIRTHS
The complaint's central warning is retroactivity. Unlike the 2025 order, which applied only to children born more than 30 days after it was signed, the 2026 order "does not specify that it is applicable only to children born after any particular date," the complaint says. "Nothing in the text of the 2026 Executive Order suggests that it applies only to children born after its issuance."
Three of the six plaintiffs already have U.S.-born children with U.S. passports. Ana, a Venezuelan asylum applicant in Florida whose children were born in 2018 and 2025, "fears they could lose them" when the passports come up for renewal, the complaint says. Judy, a lawful permanent resident from India living in California whose child was born through a surrogate in Oregon in 2022, worries that a renewal "will be rejected if she attests that she is covered by the 2026 Executive Order, but that she will be accused of defrauding the government if she answers that she is not covered." Robert, a French G-4 visa holder in Washington whose wife works at an international organization, says the passport of their child, born in June 2026, may not be renewed.
WHAT THE AGENCY GUIDANCE SAYS, PER THE EXHIBITS
The filing attaches as Exhibits A through F guidance that the complaint says the State Department, Social Security, USDA, CMS, the Administration for Children and Families and HUD released two days after a Maryland judge enjoined the order in September.
The State Department's passport guidance, as quoted in the complaint, says staff "will utilize the existing parental data fields on form DS-11, submitted documents, relevant government records, and other indicators" to assess whether an applicant falls under the order, and that "[i]f neither parent of a minor applicant is a U.S. citizen, an attestation from each parent, under penalty of perjury, must be submitted." Social Security's guidance says "a birth certificate showing a U.S. place of birth will not be sufficient documentary evidence of United States citizenship for persons covered by the EO," and that if agency data later shows a parent met one of the order's conditions, "we will notify the parent and update our records accordingly." CMS and HUD, the complaint says, treat a birth certificate as no longer proof of citizenship "no matter when it was issued." Each document says it is "prospective only," but the complaint argues the staff assessments and attestation requirements "are not limited to children born after any particular date."
HOW THIS DIFFERS FROM THE SEPTEMBER MARYLAND RULING
On Sept. 2, Judge Boardman granted a classwide preliminary injunction in the earlier CASA v. Trump case, finding the 2026 order "almost certainly unconstitutional as applied to the certified class." That class covers children born after Feb. 19, 2025, to mothers who were unlawfully present or lawfully but temporarily present, with fathers who were not citizens or permanent residents. Judge Boardman found that "by its plain language" the order "applies to all children who meet its criteria—regardless of when they were born."
The new suit reaches families outside that class: permanent residents such as Judy, G-4 visa holders such as Robert, and parents abroad such as John, a French citizen in Paris expecting a child through a U.S. surrogate in early 2027. It proposes a class of "All people who have been or will be born in the United States who are designated by Executive Order 14418 to be ineligible for birthright citizenship" under the challenged sections, with no birth-date cutoff, and it separately attacks the agency guidance under the Administrative Procedure Act. A separate ACLU suit, Nathan v. Trump, was filed Sept. 28 in federal court in Washington on behalf of three families.
The plaintiffs ask for a declaration that the challenged provisions are unconstitutional, vacatur of the agency actions, and preliminary and permanent injunctions.
The Justice Department did not respond to TDFP's request for comment by deadline. Plaintiffs' counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project did not respond to TDFP's request for comment by deadline.
Sources: Complaint and docket, Blanca v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-04295 (D. Md., filed Oct. 14, 2026), via CourtListener; Executive Order 14418 (Aug. 6, 2026), whitehouse.gov; Memorandum Opinion, CASA, Inc. v. Trump, No. DLB-25-201 (D. Md. Sept. 2, 2026); ACLU of the District of Columbia case page for Nathan v. Trump. Cover photo: Famartin, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
Comments