In a bold and controversial move, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship, sparking immediate legal challenges from 24 Democratic-led states and cities. This unprecedented action seeks to redefine the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, igniting a constitutional battle that could reshape the nation’s immigration policies.
The lawsuits allege that Trump’s order violates the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil. Critics argue that the president has overstepped his authority. A lawsuit filed by 18 states, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco states, “The Citizenship Stripping Order falls far outside the legal bounds of the President’s authority.”
Supreme Court Showdown Looms
This legal battle could escalate into the first major Supreme Court case of Trump’s second term. The initial lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts, will proceed through the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, dominated by Democratic appointees. On the West Coast, a similar lawsuit was filed by attorneys general from Washington, Oregon, Arizona, and Illinois in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court that has traditionally leaned left but has become less liberal in recent years.
Both lawsuits demand a preliminary injunction to block the order before its implementation, which is set to begin in February 2025. Immigration rights groups, including the ACLU, have also launched their own challenges.
Trump’s Executive Order
Signed hours after his inauguration for a second term, Trump’s executive order prohibits federal agencies from issuing documents that affirm U.S. citizenship to children born under certain circumstances. The policy targets children born to parents unlawfully present in the U.S. or to mothers temporarily in the country, such as on tourist visas, if the father is a noncitizen.
The order is based on a controversial interpretation of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment. Trump and immigration hardliners argue that children of undocumented immigrants do not qualify as being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. However, legal experts contend that this interpretation misrepresents the amendment’s intent, which was primarily aimed at children of foreign diplomats or during foreign occupations.
Widespread Criticism
The executive order has been met with fierce opposition. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, co-leading the lawsuit, stated, “The president cannot, with a stroke of a pen, rewrite the Constitution and upend the rule of law.”
Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU, warned of broader implications, stating, “If it is not stopped in court, he really is striking at the heart of American communities.”
The lawsuits emphasize the wide-reaching consequences of the policy. The states argue that at least 150,000 children born annually to parents without legal status would be denied citizenship, leaving them stateless and unable to access basic federal services, from healthcare to education.
Impacts on State Resources
States argue that the executive order would place a significant financial burden on local systems. Without federal citizenship, impacted children would lose access to federally funded programs, forcing states to shoulder additional costs for healthcare, education, and social services.
For example, the Massachusetts lawsuit states, “Under the Order, children born after February 19, 2025, will lack any legal status in the eyes of the federal government. They will all be deportable, and many will be stateless.”
ACLU and Opponents Were Prepared
Trump’s longstanding ambition to end birthright citizenship gave opponents ample time to prepare for legal challenges. The ACLU’s lawsuit includes expectant parents who could be affected by the order. States and cities, meanwhile, highlight how the policy would disrupt communities and harm vulnerable children.
What’s Next?
Trump’s executive order has sparked a national debate about immigration, constitutional rights, and presidential authority. While his supporters applaud the move as a necessary step to control immigration, opponents see it as a violation of core American values.
The outcome of these lawsuits could have profound implications, not just for birthright citizenship but also for the broader balance of power between the executive branch and constitutional law. For now, the nation watches as this contentious issue moves toward what could be a landmark Supreme Court decision.
