Doe v. Trump (F-1 OPT TPS 2025)
Case Overview
A noncitizen who is employed pursuant to postgraduate Optional Practical Training authorization and residing in the United States on a F-1 visa, sued the Trump administration following the termination of their visa by the Department of Homeland Security.
BrynoDC Coverage 2 videos
The Application
DHS terminated the plaintiff's F-1/SEVIS status during active OPT employment through executive action, raising questions whether this termination was authorized by statute, whether proper procedures were followed, and whether it interferes with vested employment authorization and due process rights.
The Conclusion
The case is active in the Northern District of California before Judge Jeffrey S. White, with the plaintiff seeking judicial review and relief from the visa termination.
Case Analysis
Overview
In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott, a man who had been enslaved, was not a citizen of Missouri or the United States and therefore couldn't even bring a lawsuit in federal court, holding that Black Americans had no rights the white man was bound to respect. The decision was so catastrophic that it helped accelerate the Civil War and was directly repudiated by the 14th Amendment, which establishes birthright citizenship for all persons born in the United States. Bryan covers it as the reason the 14th Amendment says what it says. You can't understand 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens' without understanding what Dred Scott said first.
Overview
Lawyers for Civil Rights sued President Trump over the constitutionality of the order. One of the plaintiffs, "O. Doe," was identified as a pregnant woman whose expectant child would be targeted by the EO.
Overview
The government appealed the district court's order granting the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. This case was consolidated with a similar suit brought by O. Doe
Overview
A noncitizen who is employed pursuant to postgraduate Optional Practical Training authorization and residing in the United States on a F-1 visa, sued the Trump administration following the termination of their visa by the Department of Homeland Security.
Issue
Whether an executive order denying birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to non-citizen parents is constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause.
Rule
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. This provision has been interpreted to grant automatic birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil regardless of parental citizenship status, subject to limited jurisdictional exceptions.
Analysis
The executive order directly conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment by attempting to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S., including O. Doe's expectant child. The plaintiffs argue the order exceeds executive authority and violates established constitutional protections, presenting concrete injury through the threatened citizenship status of their children.
Conclusion
**Dred Scott v. Sandford established that enslaved persons and free Black Americans were not citizens with constitutional rights, a ruling so catastrophic it accelerated the Civil War.** The decision was directly repudiated by the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. A constitutional response written explicitly to overturn Dred Scott's holding.
Notes
60 U.S. 393 (1857).
Notes
CourtListener 404. Docket may have been removed or ID is incorrect
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support