A coalition of Democratic-leaning states and civil rights groups have filed lawsuits against former US President Donald Trump over his executive order to end birthright citizenship.
The order declared that individuals born in the United States would not automatically be granted citizenship if their mother was in the country unlawfully and their father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident.
This legal challenge has sparked widespread debate across the country. The lawsuits argue that Trump’s order violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born on US soil.
Critics of the order claim it infringes on constitutional rights and oversteps presidential authority.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was introduced in 1868 and affirmed the right to citizenship for anyone born in the United States. It was intended to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which denied African Americans basic rights and federal protection.
The US Supreme Court further upheld this principle in 1898 in the case of Wong Kim Ark v. United States. In that ruling, the court affirmed that children born in the US, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, are entitled to citizenship.
Trump’s executive order also targets individuals whose mothers were in the country on temporary visas, such as student or tourist visas, and whose fathers did not hold lawful permanent residency.
The move, Trump argued, was aimed at addressing the issue of “birth tourism,” where foreign nationals visit the US to give birth and obtain citizenship for their children.
Opponents of the order, including 22 Democratic-led states, have filed lawsuits challenging its legality. One lawsuit, backed by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, emphasised that Trump’s actions undermine constitutional protections.
Campbell stated that the order would strip citizenship rights from over 150,000 children born in the US each year if implemented.
Legal experts believe that ending birthright citizenship through an executive order is unlikely to succeed. Constitutional scholars have pointed out that such changes would require a constitutional amendment, which demands overwhelming approval from both houses of Congress and three-quarters of US states.
Given the current political landscape, securing such support would be nearly impossible.
Moreover, any attempt to implement the order would likely face prolonged legal battles. Federal judges in states such as Massachusetts, Washington, and Maryland are already hearing cases against the order.
In one case, a pregnant woman with temporary protected status, identified only as “O. Doe,” joined a lawsuit, fearing the order would impact her unborn child’s rights.
Temporary protected status is granted to individuals from nations affected by natural disasters, conflicts, or extraordinary events. More than one million people from 17 countries currently benefit from this programme.
Legal challenges against Trump’s order also cite the 1898 Wong Kim Ark ruling. This precedent confirmed that birthright citizenship applies to children born to immigrants in the US, irrespective of their parents’ legal status.
The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s order disregards this longstanding judicial interpretation.
Trump’s executive actions have not only drawn criticism from immigrant rights groups but also triggered additional lawsuits. One such lawsuit, filed by the National Treasury Employees Union, challenges an order that allegedly seeks to replace federal employees with political loyalists.
Follow us
