Attempts To Overturn Birthright Citizenship

Donald Trump has repeatedly proposed ending birthright citizenship — the automatic granting of U.S. citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil — despite it being explicitly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Trump has claimed he could end birthright citizenship through an executive order, targeting children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants or non-citizens. He raised this proposal multiple times during and after his presidency as part of his broader anti-immigration agenda.

Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this interpretation, most notably in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which held that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are citizens under the Constitution.

An executive order cannot override a constitutional amendment. Ending birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment — a process involving supermajorities in Congress and ratification by the states.

Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship aligns with his long-standing use of immigration as a political wedge issue. The proposal disproportionately targets immigrant communities and echoes nativist arguments historically used to deny citizenship to disfavored groups.

Attempting to unilaterally nullify a clear constitutional guarantee represents a direct challenge to the rule of law and the separation of powers. It demonstrates the administration’s disregard for constitutional limits when they conflict with political objectives. This effort is not a policy disagreement, but an explicitly unconstitutional power grab seeking to override constitutional text and more than a century of Supreme Court precedent.

Legal Timeline

Executive Order (January 2025)

On January 20, 2025, on the first day of a second term, Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order aimed to strip automatic citizenship from children born in the United States to parents who were undocumented or present on temporary visas.

Under the policy, many U.S.-born children would have been denied citizenship solely based on their parents’ immigration status. The administration argued that the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” excluded many immigrant parents, a position directly contrary to longstanding constitutional interpretation.

Immediate Lawsuits

Within hours of the order’s issuance, states and advocacy organizations filed lawsuits. Attorneys general from states including California, New Jersey, Washington, and others argued that the order violated the 14th Amendment and federal law.

Federal District Courts Block the Order

In the Western District of Washington, a federal judge quickly paused the executive order, stating it was likely unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

In Maryland, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, explicitly stating that the order conflicted with the Constitution and well-established Supreme Court precedent.

These rulings prevented the policy from taking effect while litigation continued.

Appeals Court Rulings

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction, ruling that the president does not have the authority to redefine citizenship through executive action and that the order likely violated the Constitution.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston issued a similar ruling, adding to multiple federal court decisions rejecting the policy and affirming the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on constitutional grounds.

In these decisions, courts repeatedly emphasized that established constitutional law guarantees automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

Supreme Court Involvement

The administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to consider aspects of the case. The Court focused in part on procedural questions surrounding nationwide injunctions and the role of lower courts in disputes involving federal policies.

In June 2025, the Supreme Court issued a decision limiting the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. This ruling allowed the executive order to remain in effect in some states where it had not yet been blocked.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the executive order itself.

Sources

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/06/28/the-us-supreme-court-hands-trump-a-sweeping-victory-by-limiting-the-power-of-federal-judges_6742814_4.html
https://apnews.com/article/70632486a2ae41f7c98d97b1f7399368
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-appeals-court-blocks-trumps-order-curtailing-birthright-citizenship-2025-07-24/
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/05/birthright-citizenship-trump-executive-order-012147
https://www.ytn.co.kr/_ln/0104_202501241319097989
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/5/us-supreme-court-to-consider-trumps-bid-to-end-birthright-citizenship