Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Starts Major Legal Fight

The Trump administration’s controversial push to end birthright citizenship has ignited a fierce legal battle, placing the future interpretation of the 14th Amendment under scrutiny.

Quick Takes

The Trump administration’s executive order aims to redefine birthright citizenship interpretations.
The order faces significant legal challenges from various states and civil rights groups.
Two federal judges have blocked the executive order.
The outcome of these legal disputes could have significant implications for birthright citizenship in the U.S.

Understanding the Legal Battle

The debate over birthright citizenship centers on the 14th Amendment, which has traditionally been interpreted to grant citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. However, this interpretation, particularly the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, is highly debated. Legal experts like Kurt Lash argue that the clause “actually requires more than birth to become a national citizen.” President Trump signed an executive order aiming to eliminate citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants based on this argument, sparking numerous lawsuits.

The order’s impact extends beyond legal ramifications, affecting thousands of families. Its claim, as DOJ lawyers explain, is that “text, history, and precedent support what common sense compels: the Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause” for children of those who bypass immigration laws. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour expressed skepticism, questioning the constitutionality of the order, and put the order temporarily on hold back in January.

Judicial Responses and Lawsuits

Multiple lawsuits from state attorneys general, immigrant rights groups, and individuals have been filed against the executive order. A group of five pregnant undocumented women, along with two nonprofits, seek a preliminary injunction to halt its implementation. The District of Columbia, San Francisco, and other states argue the executive order contradicts long-established legal precedents.

Judge Deborah Boardman, after hearing arguments related to the case involving the five pregnant women, ultimately granted a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, blocking the order from going into effect. She argued that the order is unconstitutional, stating, “”The U.S. Supreme court has resoundingly rejected the president’s interpretation of the citizenship clause. In fact, no court has endorsed the president’s interpretation, and this court will not be the first.”

On Thursday, Coughenor also issued another ruling in Seattle, blocking the executive order. He called birthright citizenship an “unquivocal Constitutional right” and criticized Trump for attempting to end it for children of undocumented migrants.

Judge issues nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship – ABC News https://t.co/i0TVTgEyVY

— Gerald A. Griggs (@AttorneyGriggs) February 5, 2025

New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin reinforced the lawsuits by stating, “The president cannot, with a stroke of a pen, write the 14th Amendment out of existence, period.” Despite these challenges, the White House is steadfast in defending the order, framing it as a necessary measure against what some call a misuse of the 14th Amendment.

The White House’s determination echoes Harrison Fields’ assertion that the move is aligned with the will of the people. Supporters of the order argue that it addresses false interpretations of the 14th Amendment, ostensibly to discourage illegal immigration.

Potential Supreme Court Implications

The ongoing judicial proceedings may ultimately necessitate Supreme Court intervention to clarify the 14th Amendment’s meaning in contemporary contexts. While the Trump administration reportedly anticipated legal blocks from lower courts, the definitive resolution remains unprecedented. Legal commentaries predict this could either reaffirm or redefine the citizenship norms practiced for over a century.