fbpx

Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order

Trump's Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship

President Donald Trump's executive order aims to alter U.S. citizenship law by ending birthright citizenship. The order specifies that for a child to automatically be considered a U.S. citizen, at least one parent must be a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident. This policy targets children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents, particularly those with unauthorized immigration status or on temporary visas.

The president intends to implement this policy quickly, with a 30-day implementation period following its signing. Trump argues this will "protect the meaning and value of American citizenship," though critics contest the order's constitutional validity, citing the 14th Amendment. Legal experts anticipate court challenges due to potential constitutional conflicts.

Trump has expressed interest in challenging previous legal precedents, suggesting the Supreme Court's conservative majority might revisit this interpretation. However, changing established legal doctrines based on constitutional amendments could prove challenging. The order's implementation and effectiveness may face delays and legal battles.

Constitutional Challenges and Legal Interpretation

The constitutional challenges to President Trump's executive order invoke the 14th Amendment, which states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

This language has historically been interpreted to affirm birthright citizenship, as established in the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Legal scholars typically argue that this provision applies broadly, regardless of parents' immigration status. The 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' clause has been narrowly applied, primarily excluding children of:

  • $0
  • $100
  • $200

Submit Final Answer
  • Foreign diplomats
  • Enemy soldiers in hostile occupation
  • Members of sovereign Indigenous tribes (before specific legislative changes)

Trump's administration proposes a re-interpretation of this clause, arguing that unauthorized immigrants and those on temporary visas are not "fully subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This view suggests that true jurisdiction involves complete political allegiance, a perspective not traditionally supported by legal precedent.

The debate centers on whether the Supreme Court's conservative majority might entertain a fundamentally altered understanding of the 14th Amendment's language. Proponents of Trump's view face the challenge of arguing that the amendment's context and application have been misinterpreted for over a century, potentially requiring both judicial endorsement and legislative action.

The Supreme Court building facade with the text of the 14th Amendment engraved on its steps

Litigation and Legal Precedent

President Trump's executive order has prompted legal challenges from a coalition of states and civil rights organizations. These entities argue that the order is unconstitutional, based on the longstanding interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. A group of 18 states, including New Jersey, New York, and California, have filed lawsuits asserting that the order violates constitutional rights and could burden local governments financially.

The legal arguments center around the interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Fourteenth Amendment. Historically, this has been interpreted through cases like United States v. Wong Kim Ark as establishing citizenship for any child born on U.S. soil, with few exceptions.

Legal experts predict these lawsuits could reach the Supreme Court. The court's decision could have far-reaching implications for immigration law and constitutional interpretation. Given the court's conservative majority, there is speculation about its willingness to revisit the Fourteenth Amendment's interpretation.

However, altering such a deeply embedded legal understanding would require compelling arguments. The strength of existing precedents and the originalist perspective of many justices may influence the court to maintain the status quo. This legal confrontation serves as a significant test of constitutional interpretation and the resilience of longstanding legal doctrines.

  1. United States Constitution. Amendment XIV.
  2. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
  3. American Civil Liberties Union. Statement on Trump's Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship. 2024.
  4. New Jersey Attorney General's Office. Press Release: Lawsuit Filed Against Trump Administration's Birthright Citizenship Order. 2024.