President Donald Trump issued an executive order aimed at redefining the scope of birthright citizenship in the United States on Jan. 20, 2025. The order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” seeks to limit automatic citizenship for certain categories of individuals born in the United States.
At the heart of this controversy lies the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which has long been interpreted as guaranteeing citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil.
The 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship
The first sentence of the 14th Amendment’s Section 1 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 clause, known as the Citizenship Clause, has been the bedrock of birthright citizenship in the United States for over 150 years. It was originally passed to overturn the infamous Dred Scott decision, which had denied citizenship to African Americans.
Supreme Court Interpretations
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship provision. In the landmark 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court ruled that a child born in the United States to Chinese immigrant parents was indeed a U.S. citizen, regardless of the parents’ citizenship status.
Exceptions to Birthright Citizenship
While the 14th Amendment’s language is broad, there are a few narrow exceptions to birthright citizenship:
- Children of foreign diplomats
- Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of U.S. territory
These exceptions are based on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the amendment’s text.
Key Points of the Executive Order
The order stipulates that U.S. citizenship will not automatically extend to individuals born in the United States under two specific circumstances:
- When the mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. and the father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of birth.
- When the mother’s presence in the U.S. was lawful but temporary (e.g., on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of birth.
The new policy will apply to individuals born in the United States 30 days after the date of the order. The Secretary of State, Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Commissioner of Social Security are directed to ensure their departments’ regulations and policies align with this order1.
Rationale and Legal Context
The executive order cites the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”. The administration argues that this amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.
The order also references the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), noting that the 14th Amendment rightly repudiated this “shameful decision” that had excluded people of African descent from U.S. citizenship based on race.
Potential Implications and Controversy
This executive order represents a significant shift in the interpretation of birthright citizenship, which has been a cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy for over 150 years. Critics may argue that the order oversteps executive authority and may face legal challenges.
ACLU and Immigrants’ Rights Advocates File Lawsuit Against Trump Administration Over Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
In a bold move to safeguard constitutional rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, along with its state affiliates in New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. The suit challenges a controversial executive order aimed at denying U.S. citizenship to certain children born in the United States.
The case, spearheaded by a coalition including the ACLU, the Asian Law Caucus, the State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the Legal Defense Fund, represents a united front against what is seen as a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The plaintiffs, including organizations like New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and Make the Road New York, argue that the order blatantly disregards established Supreme Court precedent and congressional intent.
“Denying citizenship to children born on U.S. soil is not only unconstitutional, but it also undermines the fundamental values that define America as a nation,” stated Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. “This executive order creates a dangerous precedent, attempting to establish a permanent subclass of Americans, which we cannot allow.”
The lawsuit emphasizes the potential human cost of the executive order, highlighting the plight of immigrant families currently expecting children. One such family, members of the New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support, expressed fear and uncertainty about the future of their unborn child. “This order not only threatens the well-being of our child but also casts doubt on the very rights and protections that should be guaranteed to every person born in this country,” shared a representative of the group.
Pritzker’s Statement on Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
Governor JB Pritzker released the following statement regarding President Trump signing an executive order on birthright citizenship:
“President Trump’s executive order to strip birthright citizenship from people born in this country is unconstitutional. Here in Illinois, we follow the law. This is only the beginning of the new administration’s attempt to undermine the rule of law, and the people of Illinois can count on me to stand against unconstitutional actions.”
