A major legal battle is brewing over birthright citizenship in the United States.
Several left-leaning states are challenging a new executive order from President Trump that aims to end automatic U.S. citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants and temporary visitors.
The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Washington state, argues that Trump’s policy is unconstitutional. But supporters of the executive order say it’s long overdue.
What’s Happening?
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order clarifying the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
His order states that children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants or temporary visitors are not automatically granted citizenship. Instead, it asserts that being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States means full allegiance to the country—not just being physically present.
This move sparked immediate lawsuits.
The states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, along with several individual plaintiffs, sued the federal government, arguing that the order violates the 14th Amendment and existing immigration law.
They also claim the policy will create confusion, increase government costs, and harm families.
The Legal Argument for Ending Birthright Citizenship
Supporters of Trump’s executive order argue that birthright citizenship has been misinterpreted for decades.
“DOJ’s brief opposing the motion for preliminary injunction in the birthright citizenship case is powerful, and a very accurate assessment of the original public meaning of the Citizenship Clause,” wrote John Eastman on X. “Let’s hope the judge in the case gives it the serious consideration it is due.”
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
But what does “subject to the jurisdiction” actually mean?
Legal experts backing the Trump administration point to the Supreme Court’s 1884 decision in Elk v. Wilkins, which stated that Native Americans born in tribal nations were not automatically U.S. citizens because they owed allegiance to their own nations.
Likewise, illegal immigrants and temporary visitors still owe allegiance to their home countries, they argue, and should not receive automatic citizenship for their children.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which helped shape the 14th Amendment, granted citizenship only to those “not subject to any foreign power.” Trump’s order aligns with that original intent, his legal team argues.
How This Policy Would Work
Trump’s executive order directs federal agencies to stop issuing U.S. passports and other citizenship documents to children who do not qualify under the new interpretation.
It applies only to children born after February 19, 2025, meaning those already considered citizens will not be affected.
Critics claim this will create “stateless” children, but the administration counters that these children remain citizens of their parents’ home countries and can apply for legal U.S. status through proper immigration channels.
The Opposition’s Argument
Democrats, liberal legal scholars, and immigration activists strongly oppose the order.
They argue that birthright citizenship has been the law of the land since United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), a Supreme Court case that ruled a child born in the U.S. to legal Chinese immigrants was a citizen.
Opponents fear this policy is the first step toward removing citizenship from millions of people.
Some legal experts also say an executive order is not the right way to change citizenship laws—only Congress or the Supreme Court can make such a change.
What’s Next?
The case is now before U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle. If he rules against Trump’s order, the administration is expected to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.
Many legal scholars believe the high court will have to resolve the issue once and for all.
A recent Rasmussen poll found that 62% of Americans support ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.
Even some Democrats, including Senator Joe Manchin, have voiced concerns about abuse of the current system, which has led to “birth tourism” and illegal immigrants gaming the system to secure citizenship for their children.
For decades, millions of people have come to the U.S. to give birth, hoping their children will be granted automatic citizenship. Trump’s order seeks to close what many conservatives see as a loophole that encourages illegal immigration.
Final Thoughts
This legal fight isn’t just about immigration—it’s about who gets to decide what citizenship means.
Should it be based on historical intent and national sovereignty, or should it continue as a policy that many argue incentivizes illegal immigration?
One thing is certain: this battle is just getting started.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
