Amicus Curiae Brief — Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. Barbara, et al.
Supreme Court briefFeb 26, 2026
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No. 25-365
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
DONALD J. TRUMP,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
BARBARA, et al.,
Respondents.
On Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment to the
United States Court of A ppeals for the First Circuit
BRIEF OF THE GLOBAL STRATEGIC
LITIGATION COUNCIL, UNITED
STATELESS AND 49 OTHER IMMIGRANTS’
RIGHTS GROUPS AS AMICI CURIAE IN
SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
Additional Counsel
for Amici listed below
120885
Ian M. Kysel
Counsel of Record
Transnational Disputes Clinic
Cornell Law School
Myron Taylor Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
ian.kysel@cornell.edu
(607) 255-5503
A
(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859
Isabella Mosselmans
Global Strategic
Litigation Council
Zolberg Institute
The New School
79 Fifth Avenue, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10003
Betsy Fisher
United Stateless
P.O. Box 4240
Boulder, CO 80306
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
TABLE OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
I.
The E.O. Harms Vulnerable Groups of
Immigrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. The E.O. Would Significantly Increase
Statelessness in the United States and
Expose Stateless People to Harm . . . . . . . . 5
1.
Statelessness Causes Devastating
Harms, Including Exclusion from
Civic, Social, and Economic Life . . . . . . 6
2. T h e E .O. Wo u l d C a u s e a n
Unpr e c e dent e d I nc r e a s e of
Statelessness in the United States . . . 8
B. The E.O. Would Put Children of
Immigrants Fleeing Persecution and
Torture at Risk of Harm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
ii
Table of Contents
Page
1.
T he E.O. Wou ld D eny U. S .
Citizenship to Children of Those
Fleeing Persecution or Torture . . . . . . 12
2. C h i ld r e n of T ho s e F le e i n g
Persecution or Tor tu re
Wo u l d Fa c e S t a t e l e s s n e s s
and Deportation to Harm . . . . . . . . . . 15
C. The E.O. Would Trap Immigrant
Su r v ivors of Domestic Violence
or Abuse in Dangerous Situations
by Restricting Children’s Access
to U.S. Citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
D. The E.O. Would Strip the Children of
LGBTQI Immigrants of the Right to
Acquire U.S. Citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
II. The Court Must Rule in a Manner Consistent
with U.S. International Law Obligations
and Strike Down the E.O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A. Failure to Provide Access to Protection
from Deportation to Persecution or
Torture Would Violate International
Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
B. Fa i lu re To P rov ide Chi ld ren of
Immigrants Genuine and Effective
Opportunity to Acquire a Nationality
Violates International Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
iii
Table of Contents
Page
C. Failure to Protect Survivors of Domestic
Violence by Preventing their Children
from Acquiring U.S. Citizenship Violates
International Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
D. S y st e m at ic D epr i vat ion of t he
Right s of Ch i ld ren of LGBTQ I
Immigrant Families to Acquire U.S.
Citizenship Violates International
Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
iv
TABLE OF APPENDICES
Page
APPENDIX A — ANNEX I - LIST OF AMICI . . . . 1a
v
TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Aumeeruddy-Cziffra et al. v. Mauritius,
U.N. Hum. Rights Comm., Commc’n No. R.9/35,
U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) (1981) . . . . . . . . . . 29
CASA, Inc. v. Trump,
793 F. Supp. 3d 687 (D. Md. 2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
D.Z. v. Netherlands,
U.N. Hum. Rights Comm., Commc’n No. 2918/2016 . . 28
Daniel Faslliu, Marjeldo Rexha & Hajrije
Rexha v. Albania,
U.N. Hum. Rights Comm., Commc’n No. 3602/2019 . . 28
Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. D.V.D.,
145 S. Ct. 2153 (2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 14
Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. D.V.D.,
145 S. Ct. 2627 (2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 14
E. J. D.B. v. U.S. Dept. of State,
825 F. App’x 479 (9th Cir. 2020) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
G. v. Australia, U.N. Hum. Rights Comm.,
Commc’n No. 2172/2012 (2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v.
Cardoza-Fonseca,
480 U.S. 421 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
vi
Cited Authorities
Page
Lenahan (Gonzales) v. U.S.,
Case 12.626, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R.,
Report No. 80/11 (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Ma v. Ashcroft,
257 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Matter of Toboso-Alfonso,
20 I. & N. Dec. 819 (B.I.A. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy,
6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64 (1804) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Plyler v. Doe,
457 U.S. 202 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,
542 U.S. 692 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
The Nereide,
13 U.S. 388 (1815) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
The Paquete Habana,
175 U.S. 677 (1900) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Trop v. Dulles,
356 U.S. 86 (1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Trump v. CASA,
606 U.S. 831 (2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
vii
Cited Authorities
Page
Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678 (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Const. Am. XIV cl. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
U.S. Const. art. II, cl. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Statutes
8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8 U.S.C. § 1231 note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
viii
Cited Authorities
Page
8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 13
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998
§ 2242 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Pub. L. 105-277, Div. G, § 2242(a), 112 Stat. 2681 (1998) . 26
Rules
S. Ct. R. 37.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Treaties
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S 85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees,
July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,
Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223, 606 U.N.T.S. 267 . . . . 26
Regulations
8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
ix
Cited Authorities
Page
8 C.F.R. § 208.16(d)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8 C.F.R. § 208.17(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8 C.F.R. § 208.18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8 C.F.R. § 241.15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8 C.F.R. § 1208.18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Other Authorities
138 Cong. Rec. S4781-01 (daily ed. Apr. 2, 1992) . . . . . 27
A b i g a i l M . M o r r i s o n e t a l . , In t i m a t e
Par tner Violence and Immigration in
the United States: A Systematic Review,
25 Trauma, Violence, & A buse 846 (Jan., 2024) . . . 18
Aleena Shahzad et al., The Psychological Impact of
Spending a Prolonged Time Awaiting Asylum,
16 Eur. J. Psychotraumatology 1 (2025) . . . . . . . . . 15
x
Cited Authorities
Page
Alliance for Immigrant Survivors, Fear and
Silence: 2025 Insights from Advocates for
Immigrant Survivors of Domestic Violence,
Sexual Assault, and Human Trafficking
(Dec. 10, 2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Amnesty International, Its Intersex Awareness
Day –Here are 5 Myths we Need to Shatter
(Oct. 26, 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 23
A n a A l a n i s A m ay a & Je a n ne Bat a lova ,
Ve n e z u e l a n I m m i g r a n t s i n t h e
United States, M igr a t ion P ol ic y I ns t .
(Feb. 6, 2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Angela Peralta & Olivia Salcido, Domestic Violence
in Immigrant Communities: Breaking the Cycle,
14 J. Immigrant & Refugee Stud. 1 (2011) . . . . . . . 19
Betsy L. Fisher, The ‘Operation of Law’ in
St a t el e ss n e ss St a tu s De t e r min a ti o n s
Under the 1954 Convention,
33 Wis. Intl. L.J. 254 (2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Caroline Bettinger-López, Jamila Flomo & Amanda
Suarez, The Effects of Anti-Immigrant Laws
in the U.S. on Victims of Domestic Violence,
Sexual Assault, and Human Trafficking:
A Gender-Based Human Rights Analysis,
23 Harv. Latinx L. Rev. 17 (June 2020) . . . . . . . . . . 30
xi
Cited Authorities
Page
Citizenship & Immigr. Servs. Ombudsman, U.S.
Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Annual Report 2024
(June 28, 2024) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela
(as amended Dec. 15, 1999) (Venez.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Convention Relating to the Status
of Stateless Persons,
360 U.N.T.S. 117 (Sept. 28, 1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
D on a ld K e r w i n et a l ., St a t el e ss n e ss in
the United States: A Study to Estimate
and Profile the US Stateless Population,
8 J. on Migration & Hum. Sec. 151 (June 2, 2020) . . 6
Edward Swaine, Taking Care of Treaties,
108 Colum. L. Rev. 331 (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Exec. Order No. 14160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449
(Jan. 29, 2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 8, 12, 19, 21
Forum, Explainer: Asylum Backlogs (Jan. 23, 2024) . . . 14
General Comment No. 18: Non-Discrimination,
U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
H.R. Rep. No. 103-395 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
xii
Cited Authorities
Page
Human Rights Comm., General Comment
No. 17: Ar ticle 24 (Rights of the Child),
U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Immigration Court Quick Facts, TRAC Reports . . . . 14
I m m i g r a n t L e g a l R e s o u r c e C e n t e r,
Application of the Child Status
Protection Act to Asylees and Refugees
(May 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
International Law Commission, Draft Articles on
Diplomatic Protection with Commentaries,
U.N. Doc. A/61/10 (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Jaclyn Diaz, Living in the shadows: Why stateless
people fear Trump’s immigration crackdown,
NPR (Aug. 21, 2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
J a c o b H a m b u r g e r, T h e C o n s e q u e n c e s
of Ending Bir thr ight Citizenship,
103 Wash U. L. Rev. 236 (2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Joanne Hulley et al., Intimate Partner Violence and
Barriers to Help-Seeking Among Black, Asian,
Minority Ethnic and Immigrant Women: A
Qualitative Metasynthesis of Global Research,
24 Trauma, Violence, & A buse 1001 (Apr., 2023) . . 18
xiii
Cited Authorities
Page
K at e S c a n lon , Ex p e c t a n t Mo m Se ek in g
Politi ca l As ylum in US Ur ges
Pr ot ec ti o n of Bir thr i gh t Ci tize n ship,
OSV News (June 6, 2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Laura Krygere, et al., Infertility management in
a patient with Swyer syndrome: a case report,
42 J. A ssist. Reprod. Genet. 1689 (May 2025) . . . . 23
Leslye Orloff et al., Battered Immigrant Women’s
Willingness to Call for Help and Police Response,
13 U.C.L.A. Women’s L.J. 43 (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Maarten Vink et al., The Global State of Citizenship
(2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Martín Sanchez et al., Sexual
Vi c timi z a ti o n of Im mi g r a n t Wo m e n ,
31 Violence Against Women 125 (2014). . . . . . . . . . 18
Mary Ann Dutton, Leslye Orloff & Giselle Hass,
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f He l p - S e e k i n g
Behav io rs , Reso ur ces , an d Ser v i ce
Needs of Battered Immigrant Latinas:
L e g a l a n d Poli c y Im p li c a ti o n s,
7 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol’y 245 (2000) . . . . . . . 20
Mel issa St ewa r t , Bir thr ight Citizenship,
De n a tur a li z a ti o n a n d th e Sp e c t e r of
Statelessness (Jan. 26, 2026) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 11
xiv
Cited Authorities
Page
Nawa l A m ma r et a l., Do m estic Viol en ce
in Immigrant Communities,
25 Women & Crim. Just. 1 (2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
OHCHR, Intersex People: OHCHR and the Human
Rights of LGBTI People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Patricia Erasmus , Statelessness, the Right to
Health, Policy, and Case Law: The Potential
Role of Feminist Development Education and
the Campaign for Universal Birth Registration,
in S ystems T hinking for Global H ealth:
H ow C a n S yst em s -T hinking C on t ri bu t e
t o S olvi ng K e y C h a ll enge s i n G l oba l
Health? (2023) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence
against women and girls, its causes and
consequences, U.N. Doc. A/78/256 (2023) . . . . . . . . 29
The A mer ican Decla ration on the Rights
and Duties of Man, Res. XXX, Final Act
of the Ninth International Conference of
American States (Pan American Union),
Bogota, Colombia, Mar. 30-May 2, 1948 . . . . . . . . . . 30
The Int’l Comm’n of Jurists & The Int’l Serv.
For Hum. Rts., The Yogyakarta Principles:
Principles on the Application of International
Hu m a n R i g h t s L a w i n R e l a t i o n t o
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
(2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
xv
Cited Authorities
Page
The Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law
§ 310 (2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
The Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law
§ 114 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
U.N. Comm. Against Torture, General Comment
No. 4 on the Implementation of Article 3 of
the Convention in the Context of Article 22,
U.N. Doc. CAT/C/GC/4 (Sept. 4, 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . 26
U.N. Com m . on t he El i m i n at ion of
Discrimination Against Women, General
Recommendation No. 32 on the Gender-Related
Dimensions of Refugee Status, Asylum,
Nationality and Statelessness of Women,
U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/32 (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
U. N. H i g h C o m m’r for Hu m a n R i g ht s ,
Investigating and Preventing
Unlaw ful Deaths of LGBTIQ+ Persons,
U.N. Doc. A/79/172 (Sept. 9, 2024) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
U.N. High Comm’r for Refugees, Guidelines
o n In t e r n a t i o n a l P r o t e c t i o n : C h i l d
Asylum Claims under Articles 1(A)2 and
1(F) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967
Protocol relating to the Status of Refugee
(Dec. 22, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
xvi
Cited Authorities
Page
U. N. O f f. H i gh C om m’r for Hu m . Rt s .,
Resolution 2005/45 on Human Rights and
Arbitrar y Depr ivation of Nationality,
U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2005/45 (2005) . . . . . . . . . . 31
UNHCR, Background Note on Gender Equality,
Nationality Laws and Statelessness 2025
(Mar. 7, 2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
UNHCR, Guidance Note on International
Protection Concer ns for Venezuelans –
Update I (May 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
UNHCR, Handbook for the Protection of Women
and Girls (1st ed., Jan. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
UNHCR , Not e o n th e Pr in cipl e of No nRefoulement (Nov. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,
Expert Meeting – The Concept of Stateless
Persons under International Law (“Prato
Conclusions”) (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner
for Hu m a n R ight s , Pr in c ipl es an d
G uidelines suppor ted by practical
guidance on the human rights protections
of migrants in v uln erabl e situ atio ns,
UN Doc. A/HRC/33/67 (Apr. 03, 2018) . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
xvii
Cited Authorities
Page
USCIS Policy Memorandum, Hold and Review
of all Pending Asylum Applications and
all USCIS Ben ef it Ap plicatio ns Fil ed
b y Ali e n s f r o m Hi gh-Ri sk Co un tr i es
(Dec. 2, 2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., Instructions
for Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for
Withholding of Removal (OMB No. 1615-0067) . . . 13
U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Ser vs., USCIS
Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n o f E x e c u t i v e
Order 14160 – Protecting the Meaning
a n d Va l u e of Am e r i c a n Ci ti z e n shi p,
IP-2025-0001 (July 25, 2025) . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 12, 13, 21
U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., USCIS Policy
Manual, Vol. 3, Part K, Statelessness (eff. Oct.
30, 2023), rescinded by Policy Alert PA-202506, Rescission of the USCIS Statelessness
Policy (June 5, 2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1
In the Supreme Court of the United States
Donald J. Trump, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
Barbara, et al.,
Respondents
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
BRIEF OF THE GLOBAL STRATEGIC
LITIGATION COUNCIL, UNITED
STATELESS, AND 49 OTHER IMMIGRANTS’
RIGHTS GROUPS AS AMICI CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE
Amici1 are 51 immigrants’ rights organizations which
work with or advocate for immigrants, including, in the
United States, those whose children are at heightened
risk of denial of the right to acquire U.S. citizenship under
the challenged Executive Order. This includes stateless
people, asylum seekers, immigrant survivors of domestic
1. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, no counsel for a
party authored this brief in whole or in part and no person or entity
other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution
to its preparation or submission.
2
violence or abuse, and Lesbian, Gay, Transgender, Queer,
and Intersex (“LGBTQI”) immigrants. Several amici
have intervened as amicus before this Court, the Federal
Courts of Appeal, and District Courts as well as before
the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals and various
international tribunals.
The Global Strategic Litigation Council is an
organization seeking to protect and advance the rights
of refugees and other migrants worldwide. The Council
unites and supports a global coalition of over 650 NGOs,
refugee leaders, lawyers, advocates, and academics,
and its members are a diverse group of individual and
organizational experts in international law on refugee
rights, forced displacement, nationality, and statelessness.
United Stateless is a national organization led by
stateless people whose mission is to build and inspire
community among those affected by statelessness, and
advocate for their human rights.
A complete list of amici is included in Annex I.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
For well over a century, the Citizenship Clause of the
United States Constitution has guaranteed citizenship at
birth for nearly all children born on U.S. soil, regardless
of the immigration status of their parents. Executive
Order 14160 (the “E.O.”) purports to strip the right to
U.S. citizenship at birth from children of immigrants
whose mothers are deemed to be “unlawfully present”
or in a “lawful but temporary,” status and whose fathers
are not U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents
3
(“LPRs”). See Exec. Order No. 14160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449
(Jan. 29, 2025). This marks an exceptional break from the
Constitution’s text and purpose, statutory law, and this
Court’s precedent.
The E.O. condemns many U.S.-born children of
immigrants to statelessness and increases the likelihood
of infants and other young children being detained and
deported to harm, and of families being separated. The
E.O. thereby differentially harms vulnerable groups of
immigrants by stripping from their newborn children the
right to acquire U.S. citizenship. In particular, it harms
stateless people, asylum seekers, immigrants who are
indefinitely protected against removal on account of a fear
of persecution or torture, immigrant survivors of domestic
violence or abuse, and LGBTQI immigrants.
Finally, permitting its operation would put the United
States in breach of binding international law obligations,
such as to ensure children have a genuine and effective
opportunity to acquire nationality. The Court should
refuse to allow the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause and
its codification in statute to be abrogated by executive fiat
and affirm the District Court.
ARGUMENT
The E.O.’s redefinition of Constitutional and statutory
guarantees of birthright citizenship is harmful to
vulnerable2 groups of immigrants and their children and
2. Amici use “vulnerable” in the sense that the E.O. renders
groups of immigrants vulnerable, not to suggest that immigrants
are inherently vulnerable. See U.N. Off. of the High Comm’r for
4
would violate international law. Indeed, by operation of
the E.O., children would “be wrench[ed] from the arms of
parents lawfully in the United States” and instead “face
deportation, even as their parents remain lawfully in the
country.” Trump v. CASA, 606 U.S. 831, 916–17 (2025)
(Sotomayor, Kagan & Jackson, JJ., dissenting).
Part I establishes how the E.O. creates foreseeable
legal chaos, due to its terms and myriad practical
obstacles to its implementation. This would harm groups
of vulnerable immigrants. Part II demonstrates that
these many harms would violate U.S. international law
obligations and that the Court must strike down the E.O.
in order to avoid putting the United States in breach of
these duties.
I.
The E.O. Harms Vulnerable Groups of Immigrants
The E.O. would harm vulnerable groups of immigrants
and plunge children into a foreseeable, chaotic, legal limbo.
Citizenship determinations pursuant to the E.O. would
particularly harm (A) children of stateless people and
other immigrants who would be rendered stateless and
stripped of legal identity and protections; (B) children of
asylum seekers and immigrants indefinitely protected
against removal on account of a fear of persecution or
torture, who would now face increased risk of deportation
to harm; (C) immigrant survivors of domestic violence or
abuse and their U.S.-born children, whose acquisition of
citizenship would be weaponized against them; and (D)
Human Rts. (“OHCHR”), Principles and Guidelines supported by
practical guidance on the human rights protections of migrants
in vulnerable situations, 5, UN Doc. A/HRC/33/67 (Apr. 03, 2018).
5
LGBTQI immigrant families, whose children’s acquisition
of citizenship would be jeopardized under a rigid, yet
ambiguous, biological-progenitor standard.
A.
The E.O. Would Significantly Increase
Statelessness in the United States and Expose
Stateless People to Harm
For well over a century, the settled understanding of
the Citizenship Clause has provided a critical safeguard
against statelessness by conferring U.S. citizenship to
virtually all children born in the United States, regardless
of their parents’ status. U.S. Const. Am. XIV cl. 1. The
E.O. would strip that protection and render stateless those
children whose parents’ country does not recognize them
as citizens or allow their children born abroad to acquire
citizenship. As a result, the E.O. would cause immediate
and lasting harm to children born without a nationality
and to their families – including by putting them at risk
of immigration enforcement and deportation. 3
3. Birth registration and thus proof of parentage within
the federal system is regulated by state and local authorities,
applying varying standards. See, e.g., Jacob Hamburger, The
Consequences of Ending Birthright Citizenship, 103 Wash U. L.
Rev. 236-40 (2025). Local control means that availability of proof
of key facts required to facilitate subsequent federal citizenship
determinations under the E.O. would vary substantially by
geography. This would convert routine acts such as registering
a birth into high-stakes adjudications of parental status at birth,
requiring consideration of, for example, multiple generations of
birth certificates or other documents. Id. at 240-41.
6
1.
Statelessness Causes Devastating Harms,
Including Exclusion from Civic, Social,
and Economic Life
Stateless people are not considered nationals by any
country by operation of its laws.4 The best estimates
suggest that there are at least 218,000 people who are
stateless or at risk of statelessness in the United States.
Donald Kerwin et al., Statelessness in the United States:
A Study to Estimate and Profile the US Stateless
Population, 8 J. on Migration & Hum. Sec. 151, 153 (June
2, 2020). There is no statutory or regulatory process
for granting status to immigrants on the basis of their
statelessness. The Department of Homeland Security
(“DHS”) issued internal guidance in 2023 articulating
relevant criteria for adjudication of claims involving
stateless noncitizens and then rescinded that guidance
in June 2025, eliminating any administrative framework
for considering statelessness claims. See U.S. Citizenship
& Immigr. Servs., USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 3, Part K,
Statelessness (eff. Oct. 30, 2023), rescinded by Policy Alert
PA-2025-06, Rescission of the USCIS Statelessness Policy
(June 5, 2025). The lack of such a pathway to legal status
has long left stateless people in the United States at risk of
immigration enforcement, including prolonged detention.
4. The definition of statelessness comes from Article 1(1) of
the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons,
which reflects customary international law. Convention Relating
to the Status of Stateless Persons, 360 U.N.T.S. 117 (Sept. 28,
1954); see also International Law Commission, Draft Articles on
Diplomatic Protection with Commentaries, U.N. Doc. A/61/10
(2006); United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Expert
Meeting – The Concept of Stateless Persons under International
Law (“Prato Conclusions”) 2 (2010).
7
Cf. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 684 (2001) (noting Mr.
Zadvydas’ statelessness and imposing limits on detention
for those with no foreseeable removal prospects).
This Court has recognized the devastating harm of
lacking a nationality and of rendering people stateless:
“[Statelessness] is . . . the total destruction of the
individual’s status in organized society. It is a form of
punishment more primitive than torture, for it destroys for
the individual the political existence that was centuries in
the development.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 102 (1958).
Without a recognized nationality, stateless people are often
unable to obtain even the most basic identity documents,
including valid U.S. state identification. See, e.g., Jaclyn
Diaz, Living in the shadows: Why stateless people fear
Trump’s immigration crackdown, NPR (Aug. 21, 2025),
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/21/nx-s1-5502366/trumpstateless-citizenship-immigration-birthright. Those
barriers can cascade into a near complete exclusion from
economic and social life, preventing a stateless person
from opening a bank account, accessing higher education,
or working legally. Id. Statelessness also can limit access
to health care and essential medical services. Patricia
Erasmus, Statelessness, the Right to Health, Policy, and
Case Law: The Potential Role of Feminist Development
Education and the Campaign for Universal Birth
Registration, in Systems Thinking for Global Health:
How Can Systems-Thinking Contribute to Solving K ey
Challenges in Global Health? 293 (Frédérique Vallières
et al., eds. 2023).
The significant increase in statelessness in the United
States that would result would strip those impacted of the
ability to fully function within society, effectively creating
8
a vast class of individuals excluded from civic, economic,
and social life.
2.
The E.O. Would Cause an Unprecedented
Increase of Statelessness in the United
States
Under the E.O., a child born in the United States to
a stateless mother who is “unlawfully present” or in a
“lawful but temporary” status, and whose father is not
a U.S. citizen or LPR, would be stripped of the right to
acquire U.S. citizenship. See Exec. Order at §§ 1–2(a). 5 If
both the mother and the father are stateless, their child
would be born stateless. Melissa Stewart, Birthright
Citizenship, Denaturalization and the Specter of
Statelessness, 73 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 170, 186–196 (Jan. 26,
2026). If the mother is stateless and the father is a national
of a country that places restrictions on the acquisition of
nationality for children born abroad, their child may be at
risk of statelessness. Cf. U.N. High Comm’r for Refugees
5. Among other things, the text of the E.O. leaves key terms
such as “unlawfully present” undefined and creates a novel “lawful
but temporary” classification, which is similarly undefined. Exec.
Order at §§ 2, 4. Via sub-regulatory guidance, the government
has since proposed conferring the immigration status of their
parents on at least some children of immigrants who are stripped
of the right to acquire U.S. citizenship, but without statutory
authority or regulatory process to do so. U.S. Citizenship &
Immigr. Servs., USCIS Implementation Plan of Executive
Order 14160 – Protecting the Meaning and Value of American
Citizenship, IP-2025-0001, 3-4 (July 25, 2025), https://www.uscis.
gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-alerts/IP-2025-0001USCIS_Implementation_Plan_of_Executive_Order_14160%20
%E2%80%93%20Protecting _the_Meaning _and_Value_of_
American_Citizenship.pdf.
9
(“UNHCR”), Handbook for the Protection of Women and
Girls, ch. 5, § 5.2.1, at 187 (1st ed., Jan. 2008), https://
www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/47cfa9fe2.
pdf. The same risk would arise for a child born in the
United States if their mother is a national of a country
that limits the acquisition of nationality for children born
abroad and their father is either stateless or a national of
a country which limits the acquisition of nationality for
children born abroad.
Children born to mothers who are nationals of one of
the 24 countries with gender discriminatory citizenship
laws, including those preventing mothers from conferring
citizenship on their children born abroad would face
particular risk of becoming stateless under the E.O.
UNHCR, Background Note on Gender Equality,
Nationality Laws and Statelessness 2025, 4 (Mar. 7, 2025),
https://www.refworld.org/reference/reports/unhcr/2025/
en/149603; Maarten Vink et al., The Global State of
Citizenship, 5 (2025) https://globalgovernanceprogramme.
eui.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/The-Global-State-ofCitizenship.pdf. Children whose parents – particularly
mothers – are from such jurisdictions, including Bahamas,
the Dominican Republic, Nepal, and Barbados, which limit
the acquisition of nationality for children born abroad, see
id. at 12, would be at a significant risk of statelessness
and harmed by operation of the E.O.
The E.O. would create a large number of stateless
individuals who no longer have effective access to
citizenship, including because they cannot prove their
relationship to their parents or their parents’ legal
status. A U.S.-born child could be at risk of statelessness
because a foreign government has deliberately deleted
10
their parents’ birth records; the child’s parents belong to
a disfavored ethnic, racial, or religious minority; or their
parents’ births were never registered due to displacement,
poverty, persecution, discrimination, or bureaucratic
barriers. See Betsy L. Fisher, The ‘Operation of Law’
in Statelessness Status Determinations Under the 1954
Convention, 33 Wis. Intl. L.J. 254, 260 (2015).
Take, for example, a married woman from Venezuela
who fled and entered the United States lawfully with
humanitarian parole or who received Temporary Protected
Status (“TPS”) and is awaiting adjudication of her asylum
application and whose spouse is either stateless or cannot
transmit nationality.6 Her U.S.-born children would be at
risk of statelessness under the E.O. because Venezuela’s
law does not provide for the automatic acquisition of
citizenship of children of Venezuelan nationals who are
born and remain abroad until majority. Constitución de la
República Bolivariana de Venezuela, art. 32 (as amended
Dec. 15, 1999) (Venez.), https://www.leyes.io/constitucion/
seccion-i-de-la-nacionalidad. Many Venezuelan families
cannot safely return to Venezuela, leaving U.S.-born
children at risk of statelessness despite their parents’
efforts to protect them from harm. See, e.g., UNHCR,
Guidance Note on International Protection Concerns
for Venezuelans – Update I, 1 (May 2019), https://www.
refworld.org/policy/countrypos/unhcr/2019/en/122601
(“UNHCR considers that for a number of profiles,
6. There are well over 770,000 Venezuelans in the United
States, including 117,000 of whom entered on parole and 607,000
estimated to be covered by TPS. See Ana Alanis Amaya & Jeanne
Batalova, Venezuelan Immigrants in the United States, Migration
Policy I nst. (Feb. 6, 2025), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/
article/venezuelan-immigrants-united-states.
11
international protection considerations are likely to arise
under the 1951 Convention/1967 Protocol relating to the
Status of Refugees depending on the circumstances of the
individual case”). The impact on children of Venezuelan
immigrants alone could cause statelessness in the United
States by operation of the E.O. to grow rapidly.
Finally, if placed in deportation proceedings, stateless
children risk being deported to countries where they have
no connection because they have no country of nationality
to designate as a destination upon removal. See Stewart,
The Specter of Statelessness at 185–86. This risk is all
but certain, as the government has begun removing
people to third countries where they have little or no
connection, including to countries in which they may face
incommunicado detention, persecution, and torture upon
arrival. See id. at 196 (citing Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v.
D.V.D., 145 S. Ct. 2153 (2025); Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v.
D.V.D., 145 S. Ct. 2627 (2025)).
B. The E.O. Would Put Children of Immigrants
Fleeing Persecution and Torture at Risk of
Harm
The E.O. uniquely harms the children of those
applying for asylum and other immigrants who face a
risk of persecution or torture. This includes those who
have already been granted withholding of removal
(“withholding”) or relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”), forms of indefinite protection from
deportation established to comply with international
law (see infra Section II.A). Among other things, the
E.O. makes these children vulnerable to statelessness,
deportation to countries where they face irreparable
harm, and also raises the risk of family separation.
12
1.
The E.O. Would Deny U.S. Citizenship to
Children of Those Fleeing Persecution or
Torture
U.S.-born infants whose mothers have an asylum
application pending, deemed in a “lawful but temporary”
status, and without a U.S. citizen or LPR father, would
lose the right to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth under the
E.O. Exec. Order at §§ 1–2(a). This could be the case even
if a child’s father had been granted protection, given the
E.O.’s differential treatment of mothers and fathers. Id.
Foreign-born children who are included by a parent at the
time of the application for asylum are eligible for derivative
asylum at the adjudicator’s discretion (conferring such
status is not mandatory). 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A). A U.S.born child of an asylum-seeking parent born after the
time of the application may have difficulty being included
in a parent’s asylum application. No statute or regulation
directly addresses the E.O.’s application to U.S.-born
children of asylum seekers and existing law potentially
complicates this possibility.7 Many children born of asylum
seekers and denied their right to acquire U.S. citizenship
would thus be left without any legal status (unlike any
foreign-born sibling who was included and given asylum
7. Asylum applicant parents would presumably seek to
modify their applications to ensure their newborn children
delivered after the application was filed are “included” as
derivatives, see Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Application
of the Child Status Protection Act to Asylees and Refugees at
1 (May 2018), https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/
applica_child_stat_asylees_refugees-20180521.pdf, in light of
the Administration’s ambiguous position. Cf. U.S. Citizenship &
Immigr. Servs., USCIS Implementation Plan of Executive Order
14160 at 2 n. 3 (July 25, 2025).
13
through a favorable exercise of discretion), and at the
mercy of a procedurally complex and fast-changing asylum
system.
In addition, children of many immigrants granted
indefinite withholding or CAT protection on account of
facing persecution or torture (and whose fathers are not
U.S. citizens or LPRs) would likewise be left without
legal status under the E.O. See U.S. Citizenship &
Immig. Servs., USCIS Implementation Plan of Executive
Order 14160 3 (July 25, 2025). By statute and regulation,
withholding and CAT protections are mandatory forms of
relief when the U.S. government finds that return would
more likely than not result in persecution or torture. See 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(d)(1), 1208.16(d)
(1); Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of
1998 § 2242, 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note; 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c)
(4), 208.17(a), 208.18, 1208.16(c)(4), 1208.17(a), 1208.18.
However, unlike derivative asylum, each family member
must independently apply for, establish eligibility for, and
be granted such protection. Compare 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)
(providing for a grant of asylum to applicant’s spouse and
children) with 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (not so providing); see
also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16; U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs.,
Instructions for Form I-589, Application for Asylum and
for Withholding of Removal (OMB No. 1615-0067), (stating
that “[w]ithholding of removal does not adhere derivatively
to any spouse or child included in the application; they
would have to apply for such protection . . . ”). Children
born of parents previously determined to face a fear of
persecution or torture would thus, like asylum applicants,
be left without U.S. citizenship or any legal status.
Even if it were permissible for a U.S.-born infant
to apply for asylum, withholding, or CAT protections,
14
as a practical matter, it would likely be very difficult
for a newborn child to establish standalone eligibility
for protection. Given the government’s expanded use of
third-country removals, they may need to endeavor to
establish eligibility for fear-based protection not only
as to their parent(s)’ country of feared harm but also as
to any other country the government may subsequently
designate. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.15;
DHS v. D.V.D., 145 S. Ct. at 2153, 2627. Infants seeking
asylum, withholding, or CAT protection would all then
be exposed to the vagaries of a broken system as well as
to the specific dynamics of such proceedings, in which
they have no recognized right to provision of counsel.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(A) (providing only a privilege
of representation “at no expense to the Government”); 8
U.S.C. § 1232(c)(5) (requiring counsel for unaccompanied
children and only “to the greatest extent practicable”).
There are over three million pending asylum
applications in the United States, with over 2.3 million
applications pending before the immigration court as
of December 2025, and more than one million asylum
applications at USCIS as of 2024. See Immigration
Court Quick Facts, TRAC Reports, https://tracreports.
org/immigration/quickfacts/eoir.html#eoir_asylumbl;
Citizenship & Immigr. Servs. Ombudsman, U.S. Dep’t
of Homeland Sec., Annual Report 2024 (June 28, 2024),
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-07/24_0628_
cisomb_2024-annual-report.pdf. In recent years, the
backlog led to wait times of nearly four and a half years
in immigration court, and over six years with USCIS.
See Forum, Explainer: Asylum Backlogs (Jan. 23, 2024),
https://forumtogether.org/article/explainer-asylumbacklogs/. This asylum backlog will only continue to grow,
15
as USCIS has indefinitely paused processing of all asylum
applications as of November 28, 2025. See USCIS Policy
Memorandum, Hold and Review of all Pending Asylum
Applications and all USCIS Benefit Applications Filed
by Aliens from High-Risk Countries, (Dec. 2, 2025),
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policyalerts/PM-602-0192-PendingApplicationsHighRiskCoun
tries-20251202.pdf. These asylum delays would consign
families impacted by the E.O. to years of legal limbo and
uncertainty, which have been shown to be associated
with heightened rates of anxiety, depression, and other
adverse psychological outcomes. See Aleena Shahzad et
al., The Psychological Impact of Spending a Prolonged
Time Awaiting Asylum, 16 Eur. J. Psychotraumatology
1, 2 (2025).
2.
Children of Those Fleeing Persecution
or Torture Would Face Statelessness and
Deportation to Harm
Under the E.O., any children born to couples seeking
asylum in the U.S. or who have withholding or CAT
protections would also be at a greater risk of statelessness.
Upon having a baby deprived of the right to acquire
U.S. citizenship, many asylum-seeking parents would
have to consider whether to register their child with the
government that persecuted them or allow their child to
become stateless. Many asylum seekers and individuals
who have won withholding or CAT protections have been
persecuted and tortured by the governments of their
home countries. As a result, they may not have access to
or feel safe seeking consular services from their country
of origin. See Reddy Decl. at ¶¶ 29–31, Dkt. No. 2-3,
CASA, Inc. v. Trump, 793 F. Supp. 3d 687 (D. Md. 2025)
16
(No. DLB-25-201). Parents may also feel that registering
their child with the government which persecuted them
could also put a target on their child. See Kate Scanlon,
Expectant Mom Seeking Political Asylum in US Urges
Protection of Birthright Citizenship, OSV News (June 6,
2025), https://www.osvnews.com/expectant-mom-seekingpolitical-asylum-in-us-urges-protection-of-birthrightcitizenship/. The E.O. could therefore force asylumseeking parents to make an impossible choice: remain in
the United States to pursue protection and risk their child
becoming stateless, or seek documentation from the very
government that persecuted them and potentially expose
themselves and their child to danger.
The E.O. would also leave many children vulnerable to
deportation to the very countries from which their parents
fled. Indeed, guidance from the United Nations suggests
that children often face a risk of persecution or torture
if their parents do – including because of shared identity
characteristics, such as race or nationality. See, e.g., UN
High Comm’r for Refugees, Guidelines on International
Protection: Child Asylum Claims under Articles 1(A)2
and 1(F) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol
relating to the Status of Refugee (Dec. 22, 2009), https://
www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/50ae46309.
pdf. LGBTQI immigrants, also discussed at Section
II. D, infra, fleeing abuses illustrate the complexities of
these consequences of the E.O. The United States has
long recognized that claims from LGBTQI immigrants
can establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of
removal. See Matter of Toboso-Alfonso, 20 I. & N. Dec.
819, 823 (B.I.A. 1990) (affirming finding that the applicant
had established membership in a particular social group
– that of being gay – and had shown a sufficient risk of
17
persecution and therefore merited legal protection on that
basis). LGBTQI parents who are granted withholding
or CAT protection or granted asylum status but whose
children are neither granted protection from return to
harm nor U.S. citizenship could thus be forced to choose
between remaining in the United States while facing
separation from their children, or leaving the United
States to preserve family unity. For those who relocate,
that choice could lead to a risk of persecution or torture on
account of their sexual orientation or gender identity, given
the widespread nature of such rights abuses worldwide.
See U.N. High Comm’r for Hum. Rights, Investigating
and Preventing Unlawful Deaths of LGBTIQ+ Persons,
U.N. Doc. A/79/172 (Sept. 9, 2024), https://www.unhcr.org/
sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/50ae46309.pdf. The effective
outcome would be a Hobson’s choice for innumerable
families fleeing harm: remain in the United States and
risk separation from their child or children, or depart to
a country where they fear – or even have been determined
to face – a risk of persecution or torture.
C.
The E.O. Would Trap Immigrant Survivors
of Domestic Violence or Abuse in Dangerous
Situations by Restricting Children’s Access to
U.S. Citizenship
The E.O. would allow abusers who are U.S. citizens or
LPRs to weaponize their children’s status as leverage over
their victims. This disproportionately harms noncitizen
women and their U.S.-born children, who could lose access
to U.S. citizenship if an abusive parent refuses to confer
it or if contacting the U.S. citizen parent would place the
noncitizen in a violent, life-threatening situation. Indeed,
some children could be rendered stateless as a result.
18
While domestic violence is an epidemic in the
United States, survivors who are present without legal
authorization face particularly acute vulnerabilities,
such as lower social capital, heightened isolation, and
fears of deportation. Abigail M. Morrison et al., Intimate
Partner Violence and Immigration in the United States:
A Systematic Review, 25 Trauma, Violence, & A buse 846,
847 (Jan., 2024); Joanne Hulley et al., Intimate Partner
Violence and Barriers to Help-Seeking Among Black,
Asian, Minority Ethnic and Immigrant Women: A
Qualitative Metasynthesis of Global Research, 24 Trauma,
Violence, & A buse 1001, 1004 (Apr., 2023). Between thirty
to sixty percent of women without legal status in the
United States are estimated to have experienced domestic
violence by an intimate partner and barriers to seeking
help are even more pronounced when the abuser is a U.S.
citizen. Leslye Orloff et al., Battered Immigrant Women’s
Willingness to Call for Help and Police Response, 13
U.C.L.A. Women’s L.J. 43, 48–50, 55 (2003). Noncitizen
women, including those who are undocumented, are almost
twice as likely as U.S. citizen women to lose their lives
at the hands of an abusive partner. Nawal Ammar et al.,
Domestic Violence in Immigrant Communities, 25 Women
& Crim. Just. 1, 8–10 (2015). Studies demonstrate that
such women are particularly vulnerable to sexual assault
and that their immigration status, particularly for those
who are present without authorization, brings increased
vulnerability to recurring sexual assault. Martín Sanchez
et al., Sexual Victimization of Immigrant Women, 31
Violence Against Women 125, 132–35 (2014). Research
demonstrates that immigration-related vulnerabilities –
including fear of deportation, economic precarity, social
isolation, and limited access to services – can exacerbate
19
domestic violence and significantly deter reporting abuse
to authorities, including when one partner is a U.S. citizen.
Angela Peralta & Olivia Salcido, Domestic Violence in
Immigrant Communities: Breaking the Cycle, 14 J.
Immigrant & Refugee Stud. 1, 6–9 (2011).
The E.O. renders a U.S. birth certificate insufficient
as prima facie evidence of citizenship. Exec. Order No.
14160, § 2(a) Children born in the U.S. to a mother who
is “unlawfully present” or in a “lawful but temporary”
status will not be able to acquire U.S. citizenship unless
their father is a U.S. citizen or LPR and they are able
to prove it to federal authorities. For these children, the
father would have to provide paperwork and, conceivably
in some instances, DNA testing in order for the child to
document their citizenship. Exec. Order No. 14160 § 4(b).
For noncitizens in the United States who experience
domestic violence or abuse, the E.O. creates a new coercive
mechanism of control. By conditioning a child’s U.S.
citizenship on the status of a U.S. citizen or LPR father,
it enables an abusive partner to threaten to render their
child a noncitizen, or even stateless. In doing so, the
E.O. forces noncitizen parents into a Faustian bargain
between their own safety and their children’s status.
This coercive structure disincentivizes victims from
leaving abusive relationships or holding their partners
accountable. Alliance for Immigrant Survivors, Fear and
Silence: 2025 Insights from Advocates for Immigrant
Survivors of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault,
and Human Trafficking (Dec. 10, 2025), https://www.
immigrantsurvivors.org/fear-and-silence-report
20
Abusive U.S. citizens and LPRs have long weaponized
the power they possess under immigration law. According
to some estimates, 72.3 percent never file immigration
applications on behalf of their noncitizen spouse, and those
who do delay an average of almost four years. Mary Ann
Dutton, Leslye Orloff & Giselle Hass, Characteristics
of Help-Seeking Behaviors, Resources, and Service
Needs of Battered Immigrant Latinas: Legal and Policy
Implications, 7 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol’y 245, 259,
292 (2000).
When enacting the Violence Against Women Act
(“VAWA”), a bipartisan Congress found that, in particular,
domestic battery problems can become exacerbated in
marriages where one spouse is not a citizen, and the
noncitizen’s legal status depends on his or her marriage
to the abuser. See H.R. Rep. No. 103-395, at 26–27 (1993).
Given the longstanding regime of conferring citizenship
at birth, acquisition of U.S. citizenship was not considered
during debate of VAWA.
Congress understood, however, that victims “fear
both continued abuse if they stay with their batterers and
deportation if they attempt to leave.” Id. Congress enacted
VAWA’s self-petition process (which allows an immigrant
survivor of abuse to sponsor their own immigrant visa), 8
U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)–(B), precisely because immigrant
women’s dependence on their abusers for legal status can
prove harmful and even deadly.
By requiring that an immigrant mother secure a
U.S. citizen or LPR father’s cooperation to establish her
21
child’s right to U.S. citizenship, the E.O. provides abusers
with a powerful tool of coercion and control, threatens
both mother and child’s continued safety, and in some
cases risks statelessness where these fathers decline to
cooperate.
D.
The E.O. Would Strip the Children of LGBTQI
Immigrants of the Right to Acquire U.S.
Citizenship
The E.O. would make it difficult for many U.S.-born
children of noncitizen LGBTQI parents or couples of
mixed immigration status to obtain U.S. citizenship at
birth. Importantly, the E.O. fails to define what criteria
the government will use to determine who qualifies as a
“biological progenitor.” Exec. Order at § 4. Significantly,
the E.O. does not clarify whether that term refers to
genetic contribution, reproductive role, chromosomal
classification, or some combination of these factors.
Id.; see also U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., USCIS
Implementation Plan of Executive Order 14160 at 2
n. 3. By tying citizenship exclusively to the status of a
child’s “biological progenitors,” the E.O. places LGBTQI
immigrant families at heightened risk of having one
parent excluded from recognition, thereby jeopardizing
the child’s citizenship despite the existence of a bona fide
parent-child relationship.
The “ biolog ical progenitor” framework
disproportionately harms non-birthing parents in samesex immigrant or mixed status couples. One parent is
necessarily a non-birthing parent. In many same-sex
22
couples, only one parent may be biologically related to the
child, while the other, non-birthing, parent nevertheless
serves as a legal as well as a social and caregiving parent.
U.S. courts have recognized such children of same-sex
parents as citizens. See E. J. D.B. v. U.S. Dept. of State,
825 F. App’x 479, 480 (9th Cir. 2020) (affirming that
a child born abroad to two married men – conceived
through assisted reproductive technology using the
noncitizen father’s sperm – was a U.S. citizen). By now
conditioning a child’s citizenship on the immigration
or citizenship status of only the “immediate male” or
“immediate female” biological progenitor, in addition
to the other restrictions on acquisition of citizenship
by children of immigrants discussed supra, the E.O.
systematically disregards the parental status of nonbirthing parents in same-sex couples. This framework
places children born into same-sex families at risk of
being denied citizenship based solely on their family’s
structure.
The E.O. would also create uncertainty for transgender
parents and families formed through assisted reproduction,
including in vitro fertilization (“IVF”) and surrogacy,
which disproportionately harms LGBTQI immigrants. For
instance, if a transgender man who is a citizen provided a
surrogate – who is “unlawfully present” or in a “lawful but
temporary” status – with his eggs to conceive a child using
a foreign third-party’s sperm, the child’s citizenship status
could be in doubt, even if the child were born on U.S. soil.
This is because it is unclear whether the transgender man
would be the “female biological progenitor,” despite being
a genetic and legal parent to the child, since he would not
be birthing the child.
23
Moreover, intersex8 individuals (whether or not they
are immigrants) may have sex characteristic that do not fit
within binary categories of “male” or “female.” However,
the E.O. requires identification of an “immediate male”
or “immediate female” biological progenitor in order for
a child to qualify for citizenship. For example, an intersex
man with Swyer syndrome9 who is a U.S. citizen in a mixed
status family might give birth to a child in the U.S. via IVF
using donated genetic material and his child might not be
entitled to citizenship if the donated material comes from
donors who were not citizens or LPRs, or whose status was
unknown. Under the definitions in the E.O., it is unclear
whether he would be the father or the mother of the child,
or neither, despite giving birth to the child, because he is
not a genetic progenitor of the child. Where an intersex
parent cannot be clearly classified under either category,
the E.O. effectively fails to recognize that parent at all for
citizenship purposes.
8. “Intersex” refers to differences in specific sex traits
(e.g., external genitalia, chromosomal karyotypes, and varied
responsiveness to testosterone or estrogen) that people are born
with or develop in childhood. OHCHR, Intersex People: OHCHR
and the Human Rights of LGBTI People, https://www.ohchr.
org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/intersex-people ;
Amnesty International, Its Intersex Awareness Day – Here are
5 Myths we Need to Shatter (Oct. 26, 2018) https://www.amnesty.
org/en/latest/news/2018/10/its-intersex-awareness-day-here-are5-myths-we-need-to-shatter (comparing prevalence of intersex
traits – 1.7 percent – to that of red hair in the population).
9. A person with Swyer syndrome has the XY chromosomal
karyotype (typically associated with males) but can sometimes
not produce sperm or ova. Laura Krygere, et al., Infertility
management in a patient with Swyer syndrome: a case report,
42 J. A ssist. Reprod. Genet. 1689 (May 2025). People with Swyer
syndrome often develop uteruses and may be capable of giving
birth if they receive an egg via donation. See id. at 1690-91.
24
The E.O. thus harms immigrant LGBTQI families
and would strip children of many of them of the right to
acquire U.S. citizenship at birth, leaving them in a chaotic,
uncertain and precarious legal status – and leaving some
of them at risk of deportation to persecution or torture.
II. The Court Must Rule in a Manner Consistent with
U.S. International Law Obligations and Strike
Down the E.O.
The Court must strike down the E.O. to avoid
breaches of U.S. international law obligations. Under the
U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, treaties “shall
be the supreme Law of the Land. . . .” U.S. Const. art.
VI, cl. 2. International treaty obligations, as well as
customary international law, have thus regularly guided
this Court’s decisions. The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S.
677, 700 (1900) (“International law is part of our law,
and must be ascertained and administered by the courts
of justice . . . ”); accord The Nereide,13 U.S. 388, 423
(1815) (Marshall, C. J.) (“[T]he Court is bound by the
law of nations which is a part of the law of the land”).
Regardless of their implementation through legislation
or whether they provide a cause of action, then, treaties –
even non-self-executing provisions of treaties – “bind the
United States as a matter of international law,” Sosa v.
Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 735 (2004), and this Court
appropriately takes treaty obligations into account in
interpreting federal law. See The Restatement (Fourth) of
Foreign Relations Law § 310 n. 12 (2018) (“A treaty’s lack
of judicial enforceability is not inconsistent with a status
of ‘Law of the Land’ under the Supremacy Clause.”).10
10. Indeed, the executive branch should itself comply with
applicable treaties in order to ensure it is taking care in order to
25
This Court has thus long applied domestic law in
a manner consistent with U.S. treaty and customary
international law obligations, to avoid putting the United
States in breach of its international law obligations.
Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch)
64, 118 (1804) (providing that “an act of Congress ought
never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any
other possible construction remains”); The Restatement
(Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 114 (1987) (“Where
fairly possible, a United States statute is to be construed
so as not to conflict with international law or with an
international agreement of the United States.”).
Upholding the E.O. would put the United States in
breach of its international human rights obligations (A)
to safeguard those fleeing persecution or torture from
deportation, (B) to prevent statelessness, (C) to eliminate
discrimination on the basis of sex in failures to protect
survivors of domestic violence or abuse, and (D) to ensure
the laws do not discriminate on the basis of sex, sexual
orientation or gender identity.
A.
Failure to Provide Access to Protection from
Deportation to Persecution or Torture Would
Violate International Law
The principle of non-refoulement prohibits deporting
any individual, including an infant, to a territory where
they face persecution or torture. The principle of nonrefoulement is, first, enshrined in the 1951 Refugee
avoid putting the United States in breach of international law. U.S.
Const. art. II, cl. 3; Edward Swaine, Taking Care of Treaties, 108
Colum. L. Rev. 331, 367 (2008)
26
Convention and made binding on the United States
through its accession to the 1967 Protocol. Protocol
Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 19
U.S.T. 6223, 606 U.N.T.S. 267; Convention relating to the
Status of Refugees Art. 33, 189 U.N.T.S. 150, (July 28,
1951) (“1951 Convention”). Congress implemented this
core protection through the mandatory “withholding
of removal” statute, which provides that the Attorney
General “may not remove” a noncitizen to a country
where the person’s “life or freedom would be threatened”
because of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or
membership in a particular social group. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(A) (2024). The Supreme Court has noted that
withholding of removal “mirrors” the Refugee Protocol.
See Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v. Cardoza-Fonseca,
480 U.S. 421, 424 (1987). Second, the duty is also reflected
in other ratified instruments including the United
Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment Art. 3, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465
U.N.T.S 85. Congress directed rulemaking to implement
CAT via the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring
Act, establishing that the U.S. government may not “expel,
extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of
any person to a country in which there are substantial
grounds for believing the person would be in danger
of being subjected to torture.” Pub. L. 105-277, Div. G,
§ 2242(a), 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822 (1998) (codified as
statutory note to 8 U.S.C. § 1231).11 Non-refoulement is
11. The treaty prohibits deportation to a risk of torture.
U.N. Comm. Against Torture, General Comment No. 4 on the
Implementation of Article 3 of the Convention in the Context of
Article 22, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/GC/4, ¶10 (Sept. 4, 2018).
27
also protected by the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (“ICCPR”). International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights arts. 2, 6, 7, Dec. 16, 1966, 999
U.N.T.S. 171. Although Congress has not implemented the
ICCPR by legislation, 138 Cong. Rec. S4781-01 (daily ed.
Apr. 2, 1992), the Executive Branch has repeatedly assured
the Senate that the U.S. could and would fulfill its treaty
commitments by applying existing federal constitutional
and statutory law in a manner commensurate with its
treaty obligations. See ICCPR, S. Exec. Rep. No. 102-23,
at 5, 19, 26-27 (1992). Federal courts have also construed
federal statutes in the immigration context to avoid breach
of the ICCPR. See, e.g., Ma v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1095,
1114-15 (9th Cir. 2001) (construing 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6)
as requiring a reasonable time limitation on immigration
detention to avoid breaching with ICCPR Art. 9).
Because non-refoulement is only meaningful if it
is operationalized in practice, countries must maintain
procedures that reliably identify those entitled to
protection and ensure they receive it, thereby functioning
as a concrete safeguard against refoulement. See UNHCR,
Note on the Principle of Non-Refoulement (Nov. 1997).
If parents fleeing persecution or torture are granted
asylum or withholding or CAT protections, but their
U.S.-born child is denied both U.S. citizenship and any
status preventing deportation to harm, the child could face
deportation and family separation. Failing to protect and
instead increasing children’s exposure to risk of removal
to harm is therefore in direct tension with this duty to
prevent refoulement. Denying citizenship to children of
asylum-seekers and those who the government knows
face a fear of persecution or torture if deported, while
leaving them without ready access to such protections,
would violate international law.
28
B. Failure To Provide Children of Immigrants
Genuine and Effective Opportunity to Acquire
a Nationality Violates International Law
While human rights law does not require countries to
grant citizenship to all who are born within their borders,
it does restrict their ability to enact or enforce laws in a
manner that would render children stateless. The ICCPR
guarantees all children rights to special measures of
protection and to acquire a nationality and guarantees to
all people the right to recognition before the law. ICCPR
arts. 16, 24(1), 24(3). The U.N. Human Rights Committee
(“HRC”), a body of experts established by the ICCPR
to supervise compliance with its provisions, has found
that a country violates the treaty when it fails to provide
a “genuine and effective” opportunity or avenue for a
stateless child to acquire a nationality, thereby rendering
them stateless or placing them at risk of statelessness. D.Z.
v. Netherlands, U.N. Human Rights Comm., Commc’n No.
2918/2016; cf. Daniel Faslliu, Marjeldo Rexha & Hajrije
Rexha v. Albania, U.N. Human Rights Comm., Commc’n
No. 3602/2019, ¶ 3.3 (reviewing risks of statelessness of
child born abroad). In reaching its conclusion in D.Z., the
HRC relied on its General Comment No. 17, emphasizing
that the purpose of the treaty’s protection of the right
to nationality is to ensure that children are not afforded
lesser protection by society or the State, and that treaty
parties are required to adopt all appropriate measures,
domestically and internationally, to ensure that every
child acquires a nationality at birth. Human Rights
Comm., General Comment No. 17: Article 24 (Rights of
the Child), ¶ 8, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (1989). U.S.
law currently provides no avenue for children who would
otherwise be rendered stateless by the E.O. to acquire
U.S. citizenship. Stripping children born on U.S. soil of the
29
right to acquire U.S. citizenship, and instead rendering
them stateless without alternative avenues by operation
of the E.O. would violate international law.
C.
Failure to Protect Survivors of Domestic
Violence by Preventing their Child ren
from Acquiring U.S. Citizenship Violates
International Law
The ICCPR imposes an obligation on the United States
to protect all people subject to its jurisdiction and control
from discrimination on the basis of sex in the enjoyment of
all human rights. ICCPR arts. 2(1), 3, 26. The HRC has found
that citizenship laws that create barriers to the acquisition
of nationality on the basis of sex are discriminatory. Cf.
Aumeeruddy-Cziffra et al. v. Mauritius, U.N. Human
Rights Comm., Commc’n No. R.9/35, U.N. Doc. Supp. No.
40 (A/36/40) at 134, ¶ 9.2(b)(2)(i)(8) (1981) (evaluating legal
barriers to spousal acquisition of nationality). Other United
Nations bodies have applied the same logic to laws preventing
children from acquiring nationality on the basis of their
parents’ sex. See, e.g., U.N. Comm. on the Elimination of
Discrimination Against Women, General Recommendation
No. 32 on the Gender-Related Dimensions of Refugee
Status, Asylum, Nationality and Statelessness of Women,
¶¶ 48–50, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/32 (2014); Report of the
Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls,
its causes and consequences, U.N. Doc. A/78/256, ¶ 1 (2023)
(finding that gender-discriminatory nationality laws “lead
to statelessness and cause wide-ranging and multilayered
forms of human rights violations, including sexual violence
and gender-based violence.”).
Human rights bodies have also found that, because
domestic violence disproportionately affects women and
30
can itself be a form of sex-based discrimination, failure
to affirmatively protect people from domestic violence
constitutes sex discrimination. Lenahan (Gonzales) v.
U.S., Case 12.626, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Report No.
80/11, ¶ 5 (2011) (interpreting the American Declaration
on the Rights and Duties of Man, Res. XXX, Final Act of
the Ninth International Conference of American States
(Pan American Union), Bogota, Colombia, Mar. 30-May
2, 1948, at 38, which has an equivalent prohibition of
discrimination to the ICCPR at its Article II).
Just as international bodies have recognized that a
state’s failure to protect survivors of domestic violence
constitutes a form of sex discrimination, failing to account
for the discriminatory impact of the E.O. on domestic
violence survivors and in particular their operation as a
barrier to their children’s ability to acquire citizenship,
flouts these duties. State action that implements the
E.O. in ways that undermine survivors’ access to legal
protections violates the ICCPR. Cf. Caroline BettingerLópez, Jamila Flomo & Amanda Suarez, The Effects of
Anti-Immigrant Laws in the U.S. on Victims of Domestic
Violence, Sexual Assault, and Human Trafficking: A
Gender-Based Human Rights Analysis, 23 Harv. Latinx
L. Rev. 17, 20–25 (June 2020). The E.O. breaches the U.S.
obligation to prevent sex discrimination under the ICCPR.
D.
Systematic Deprivation of the Rights of Children
of LGBTQI Immigrant Families to Acquire
U.S. Citizenship Violates International Law
The ICCPR’s prohibition on discrimination and
guarantee of equality before the law and equal protection
of the law has also been interpreted to include prohibitions
on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and
31
gender identity, including transgender status, in addition to
sex, and applied to the context of acquisition of nationality.
ICCPR arts. 2(1), 26; G. v. Australia, U.N. Human Rights
Comm., Commc’n No. 2172/2012, ¶¶ 6.6, 6.7, 7.12, U.N. Doc.
CCPR/C/119/D/2172/2012 (2017); accord U.N. Off. High
Comm’r for Hum. Rts., Resolution 2005/45 on Human Rights
and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality, ¶ 2, U.N. Doc.
E/CN.4/RES/2005/45 (2005). Where a child’s nationality is
denied or rendered uncertain because of a parent’s sexual
orientation or because a parent does not conform to binary
biological norms, the resulting exclusion reflects precisely
the type of status-based discrimination that human rights
law forbids. Human Rights Comm., General Comment No.
18: Non-Discrimination, ¶ 7, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1
at 26 (1994); see also The Int’l Comm’n of Jurists & The Int’l
Serv. For Hum. Rts., The Yogyakarta Principles: Principles
on the Application of International Human Rights Law in
Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (2007).
By conditioning a child’s access to citizenship on their
parents’ conformity with binary sex classifications, the
E.O. imposes unequal legal harms on similarly situated
families based solely on the sex characteristics or legal
classifications of a parent. For LGBTQI parents, whose
bodies or legal identities may not align with the E.O.’s
rigid definitions of “male” and “female,” the framework
creates a heightened risk that their parental status will
be disregarded and their child stripped of the right to
acquire U.S. citizenship as a result. There is no plausible
legitimate justification for distinctions in permitting U.S.
citizenship acquisition at birth based on parentage or
caregiving. The E.O.’s reliance on biological assumptions
that disproportionately burden LGBTQI immigrant
families therefore violates these obligations.
32
***
Allowing the E.O. to take effect would resurrect the
very legal caste system the Fourteenth Amendment was
designed to abolish – creating a shadow population of
especially vulnerable immigrants denied the protection
of the state. Cf. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 218, 218 n. 17
(1982). The Court should reaffirm the settled principle
of birthright citizenship and hold that no executive
action may override the guarantees of the Fourteenth
Amendment, nor the statutory protections enacted by
Congress. Such a holding would avoid putting the United
States in breach of its international law obligations.
CONCLUSION
The District Court’s judgment should be affirmed.
Respectfully submitted,
Isabella Mosselmans
Global Strategic
Litigation Council
Zolberg Institute
The New School
79 Fifth Avenue, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10003
Betsy Fisher
United Stateless
P.O. Box 4240
Boulder, CO 80306
Ian M. Kysel
Counsel of Record
Transnational Disputes Clinic
Cornell Law School
Myron Taylor Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
ian.kysel@cornell.edu
(607) 255-5503
APPENDIX
i
TABLE OF APPENDICES
Page
APPENDIX A — ANNEX I - LIST OF AMICI . . . . 1a
1a
APPENDIX A — Appendix
ANNEX IA- LIST OF AMICI
ANNEX I
List of Amici (in alphabetical order)
The Acacia Center for Justice
Advocates for Trans Equality Education Fund
Al Otro Lado
The Alaíde Foppa Legal Clinic for Refugees
Alianza Nacional de Campesinas
American Immigration Lawyers Association
Americans for Immigrant Justice
ASISTA Immigration Assistance
Asylum Access
Battered Women’s Justice Project
The Center for Constitutional Rights
The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies
The Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law
Central West Justice Center
2a
Appendix A
Clínica Jurídica Universidad Alberto Hurtado
Corporación Opción Legal
Dominican Development Center, Inc.
Esperanza United
Familia: Trans Queer Liberation Movement
Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project
The Global Movement Against Statelessness
The Global Strategic Litigation Council1
Grannies Respond / Abuelas Responden
Human Rights First
Immigrant Defenders Law Center
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Innovation Law Lab
The Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion
1. Positions taken by the Council do not necessarily
represent those of every member of its broader coalition, unless
they also appear here as amicus.
3a
Appendix A
Instituto para las Mujeres en la Migración
Joint Action Committee for Refugees, Pakistan
Just Solutions
Justice Center of Southeast Massachusetts
Justice and Joy National Collaborative
Kituo Cha Sheria-Legal Advice Centre
Legal Momentum, the Women’s Legal Defense &
Education Fund
The Los Angeles LGBT Center
National Council of Jewish Women
National Immigrant Justice Center
National Organization for Women
The New York City Anti-Violence Project
The Northeastern University School of Law Domestic
Violence Clinic
Oasis Legal Services
Save My Identity
4a
Appendix A
The Survivor Justice Center
The Tahirih Justice Center
Tompkins County Immigrant Rights Coalition
Ujima, The National Center on Violence Against
Women in the Black Community
United Refugees Foundation
United Stateless
The Women’s Refugee Commission
The Zambian Civil Liberties Union
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.