A coalition of pregnant women and immigrant advocacy groups has filed a lawsuit challenging an executive order issued by President Donald Trump, which seeks to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are either in the country illegally or on a temporary visa. The executive order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” directs various government agencies to cease recognizing citizenship for these children, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee citizenship in such cases.
The plaintiffs, five pregnant women and two advocacy organizations, contend that the order is an unconstitutional attempt to undermine over 150 years of established legal precedent. They argue that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of the immigration status of their parents. The plaintiffs assert that the executive order violates this fundamental right and that the administration’s claims about the Constitution’s meaning are misinterpreted and legally unfounded.
The administration’s defense of the order focuses on its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. The administration argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the Fourteenth Amendment implies that only individuals who owe complete allegiance to the United States are entitled to citizenship. According to the administration, this would exclude children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily, as their parents retain allegiance to foreign nations.
Legal experts have widely rejected this argument, pointing out that the original understanding of the Citizenship Clause, as well as a landmark 1898 Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, firmly supports the idea that any child born in the U.S. is a citizen, regardless of the status of their parents. The plaintiffs have strongly contested the administration’s interpretation, arguing that it is internally inconsistent and conflicts with both the Constitution and the Wong Kim Ark decision.
In their brief, the plaintiffs argue that the administration’s reading of the Citizenship Clause is flawed. They emphasize that the text of the Constitution does not require individuals to owe “complete” or “exclusive” allegiance to the United States to be considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the country. Rather, the clause simply asks whether a person is subject to U.S. jurisdiction while they are in the country, regardless of whether they have an allegiance to another nation. The plaintiffs point out that Wong Kim Ark, the central case cited by the government, involved parents who were Chinese nationals and thus owed allegiance to China. Despite this, the Supreme Court ruled that their child, born in the U.S., was entitled to citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The plaintiffs further argue that the administration’s reliance on a supposed “allegiance test” runs counter to the plain meaning of the Constitution and the Wong Kim Ark decision. They assert that the government’s approach would strip citizenship from children born to temporary visitors in the U.S., which is not supported by any constitutional language or historical precedent. They also criticize the administration for trying to temper the consequences of its position by suggesting that children born to temporary visitors might still be citizens, but only under very narrow circumstances.
The plaintiffs conclude that the executive order violates the separation of powers by attempting to override established legal precedent. They assert that the president does not have the authority to alter or reinterpret the Constitution unilaterally, nor can he amend the Constitution or ignore federal statutes enacted by Congress. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, guarantees birthright citizenship, and this cannot be overridden by an executive order.
In sum, the plaintiffs contend that Trump’s executive order is a direct challenge to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution and reinforced by over a century of Supreme Court rulings. They argue that the order is unconstitutional and seek to have it blocked in court. The lawsuit highlights the ongoing debate over immigration policy and the interpretation of birthright citizenship in the United States, with implications for both legal and political spheres.
