A group suing over Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship EO has already refiled their lawsuit as a class action case and is asking for an emergency block on the policy. Class action lawsuits are one of the ways that the Supreme Court explicitly indicated Friday were permissible to broadly block a federal government policy.

The claim has two main components: first, that a group suing over Donald Trump's birthright citizenship executive order (EO) has refiled their lawsuit as a class action and is seeking an emergency block on the policy; second, that the Supreme Court explicitly indicated that class action lawsuits are one of the permissible ways to broadly block federal government policies.

Regarding the first part, multiple sources including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) press release and news outlets such as HuffPost and ABC News confirm that immigrant rights advocates and civil rights groups have filed a new nationwide class-action lawsuit challenging Trump's EO on birthright citizenship. This refiling as a class action is a strategic response following a recent Supreme Court ruling that limited the use of nationwide injunctions by lower courts. The groups are indeed seeking an emergency block on the policy to prevent its enforcement while litigation proceeds.

For the second part, the Supreme Court's recent ruling curtailed the ability of lower courts to issue broad nationwide injunctions against federal policies but did not eliminate all mechanisms for broad relief. Legal analysts and news reports note that the Court explicitly recognized that class action lawsuits remain a viable procedural vehicle to achieve broad injunctive relief against federal government actions. This means plaintiffs can still seek to block policies on behalf of a class of affected individuals, which can have wide-ranging effects similar to nationwide injunctions.

Therefore, the claim accurately reflects both the legal strategy adopted by plaintiffs challenging Trump's birthright citizenship EO and the Supreme Court's guidance on permissible methods to broadly block federal policies. The claim is nuanced but well-supported by current reporting and legal analysis.