Trump Attempts to End Birthright Citizenship - Can He Actually Do It?
Picture: Stock Photos of US Passport and over US Flag
A) Policy Details
On his first day in office, on January 19, 2025, newly reelected President Donald Trump issued an executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents.
Make it stand out
On January 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour issued a temporary restraining order against President Trump's executive order that sought to end birthright citizenship, describing the order as "blatantly unconstitutional." This ruling prevents the administration from enforcing the policy for 14 days. A hearing for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for February 6, 2025, to determine whether to extend the block. The Department of Justice has indicated plans to appeal the decision, signaling a protracted legal battle that could potentially escalate to the Supreme Court.
B) Historical Context: The 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship
After the Civil War, the United States grappled with issues of slavery and citizenship.
To address these, the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, stating that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This clause was designed to ensure that former slaves and their descendants were granted full citizenship rights, effectively dismantling the caste system that had existed.
C) Key Legal Precedent: United States v. Wong Kim Ark
After the 14th Amendment was adopted, its interpretation became a critical issue in defining citizenship rights.
One landmark case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), tested these principles. Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents, was denied re-entry into the U.S. after a trip abroad. Immigration officials claimed that because his parents were not U.S. citizens, he was not a citizen either. Wong challenged this decision, and the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Court ruled in Wong’s favor, affirming that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to virtually all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ nationality. This decision firmly established that the Constitution's promise of birthright citizenship applies broadly and has been a cornerstone of U.S. citizenship law ever since.
Under the U.S. Constitution, it is the role of the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court as the highest court in the land, to interpret the law and the Constitution. The executive branch, including the president, is responsible for enforcing the laws—not redefining or interpreting them. When a president takes actions that go beyond the powers granted by the Constitution, the courts have the authority to strike down those actions as unconstitutional.
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court reinforced its role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, upholding the clear intent of the 14th Amendment and ensuring that its protections remain intact. This precedent is a reminder that no president can unilaterally change the Constitution’s meaning through executive action.
D) President Trump's Executive Order and Legal Challenges
President Trump's 2025 executive order challenges this long-standing interpretation by seeking to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. Legal experts argue that such a change cannot be enacted through an executive order alone, as it contradicts the clear language of the 14th Amendment and over a century of judicial precedent. Consequently, 22 states have filed lawsuits against the administration, asserting that the order is unconstitutional.
E) Implications and Ongoing Debate
The attempt to alter birthright citizenship has ignited a national conversation about the interpretation of the Constitution and the rights of individuals born in the U.S. As legal battles unfold, the fundamental question remains:
Can the executive branch unilaterally redefine citizenship rights that have been established for over 150 years?
The outcome of this debate will have profound implications for the nation's identity and its commitment to the principles enshrined in the Constitution.