Pregnant women across the United States have joined forces to file lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship. These legal actions, filed in states such as Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington, argue that the president’s directive is unconstitutional and violates the principles enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The lawsuits, filed on behalf of expecting parents, come in response to Trump’s recent executive order, which seeks to strip citizenship from children born in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. citizens. The plaintiffs argue that the order is a direct violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. The amendment has been a cornerstone of U.S. law for over 150 years, and federal judges have already expressed concerns about its constitutionality.
In Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington, attorneys representing pregnant women have highlighted that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has long guaranteed birthright citizenship, regardless of the parents’ immigration status. The legal challenge points out that the Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation over 125 years ago, and Congress later codified it in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The executive branch has consistently upheld the principle that children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents are entitled to automatic citizenship.
The lawsuits emphasize that Trump’s attempt to alter this long-standing constitutional principle through executive action is unlawful. The plaintiffs argue that the president does not have the unilateral authority to override rights that are firmly established in the Constitution and federal law. The complaint also underscores the deep historical and legal significance of birthright citizenship, which has shaped a shared sense of national identity for generations of Americans.
In addition to the individual lawsuits, a joint lawsuit was filed by the attorneys general of 18 states and two major cities, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. These legal actions aim to protect the rights of U.S.-born children and prevent the potential harm that could result from the executive order. The complaint asserts that Trump’s order would strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based solely on their parents’ immigration status, leaving them in legal limbo.
A separate class-action lawsuit filed in Washington state includes three pregnant women who are challenging the executive order alongside the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s directive would leave their children stateless and without any legal immigration status. The suit highlights the fundamental importance of citizenship as a marker of belonging in the U.S. and asserts that the executive order would undermine this foundational principle.
The lawsuits also name several federal agencies, including the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Social Security Administration, among others. These agencies are implicated because the executive order would require them to implement policies that could strip U.S.-born children of their citizenship, affecting their legal status and access to vital services.
Trump’s executive order argues that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally. The order asserts that such children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and, therefore, should not be granted automatic citizenship. However, critics of the order argue that this interpretation is flawed and ignores the historical and legal precedent that has upheld birthright citizenship for over a century.
The legal challenges to Trump’s executive order are expected to play a significant role in determining the future of birthright citizenship in the United States. As the lawsuits progress, the courts will likely examine the constitutionality of the president’s actions and whether they can override established legal principles. For now, the plaintiffs are fighting to protect the rights of their children and ensure that birthright citizenship remains a fundamental part of U.S. law.
