Boutique firms, public interest groups lead defense of Trump’s stance on birthright citizenship case

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a high-stakes challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. 

What’s At Stake

The executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, directs federal agencies not to recognize U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States if their mother was unlawfully present or present on a temporary basis (such as on a visa), and their father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of birth.

Challengers, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that the order violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Lower courts have so far blocked enforcement.

A striking feature of the litigation is the total absence of major corporate law firms—commonly known as “Big Law” – from the coalition supporting the administration. In an unusual departure for high-profile Supreme Court cases, the defense is being carried entirely by conservative legal organizations, specialized appellate boutiques and individual scholars.

Trump’s Supporters Step In

Despite the lack of large corporate firms, the legal team backing the president includes several prominent conservative litigators.

One notable filing came from Ben Flowers, a seasoned appellate advocate, a former Ohio solicitor general, and a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. 

Flowers’s brief lays out a detailed roadmap with multiple pathways for the high court to rule in favor of the administration, drawing on originalist scholarship likely to resonate with the six conservative justices. 

The filing also meticulously attempts to dismantle each of the ACLU’s core arguments.

Flowers is no stranger to aggressive conservative litigation. His firm, Ashbrook Byrne Kreserge Flowers, has earned a reputation for taking on complex cases that mainstream law firms tend to sidestep. 

Legal observers widely regard Flowers as a top contender for the upcoming vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, citing both his intellect and his fearless approach to high-stakes litigation.

Another significant brief came from America First Legal Foundation, a nonprofit law firm founded by Trump White House adviser Stephen Miller. The brief compiles an array of historical and academic arguments supporting the administration’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.

The state of Tennessee also submitted a brief on behalf of 25 states and Guam supporting the executive order. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, one of the advocates involved in that filing, recently persuaded the justices to uphold state law restricting gender-affirming care for minors.

Additional backing came from organizations including the Article III Project, the Claremont Institute, the Center for Renewing America and the America First Policy Institute. Conservative boutique law firms including Cooper & Kirk (Washington, D.C.) and Stone Hilton PLLC (Texas) also filed briefs in support of the administration.

Opposition from Big Law

Several major firms have weighed in against the executive order. These firms include Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Steptoe LLP, WilmerHale and Cooley LLP are advocating against the president’s executive order. 

Oral arguments are scheduled for April 1, 2026, with a decision anticipated by late June or early July.