Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship Faces Legal Challenges

Last week, a lawyer representing former President Donald Trump urged the Supreme Court to examine the legality of his executive order, which aims to end birthright citizenship for certain infants. This comes after the Supreme Court has already reviewed the order within the past year.

Officials in the Trump administration view this order as a fundamental part of their tough immigration policy, which has played a significant role in Trump’s second term. Critics, on the other hand, contend that the initiative is both unconstitutional and historically unprecedented, impacting approximately 150,000 children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents each year.

As the court session resumes this fall, there are a few important things to be aware of regarding this order and what could happen next.

Federal Judges Block the Birthright Citizenship Ban

U.S. Attorney General D. John Sauer recently submitted a request to the Supreme Court to evaluate Trump’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship. He mainly focused on two rulings made by a federal judge in New Hampshire and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the petition to the High Court, Sauer argued that the lower court’s ruling was excessively broad and undermined essential policies critical to the administration’s objectives regarding border security. The New Hampshire case, Barbara v. Trump, was brought to light in July by U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante.

Judge Laplante concluded that Trump’s order would likely conflict with the 14th Amendment and historical precedents. He stated that all infants born in the United States after February 20, 2025, should be recognized as a group and would be denied citizenship under the executive order. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled 2-1 to overturn Trump’s directive.

Enforcement Timeline for the Executive Order

The Ninth Circuit’s majority view rendered the order “invalid,” as it contradicts the explicit wording of the 14th Amendment. Sauer contended that the Supreme Court should ensure that U.S. citizenship is conferred only to those legally entitled to it. He reiterated the administration’s claim that the citizenship clause was designed to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their descendants.

He also suggested that the ruling relies on a flawed premise that citizenship is guaranteed simply by being born on U.S. soil, which he claims has harmful implications. Interestingly, he didn’t urge the judge for a quick resolution, implying that oral arguments may not be scheduled until the end of the year. A decision from the Supreme Court could arrive as soon as this month after the opposing parties file their responses.

Recent Developments in the Supreme Court

To summarize, not much has changed since the Supreme Court technically reviewed the case in May. In that session, both the Trump administration’s appeal and the judge avoided addressing the order’s merits initially. The discussions primarily focused on the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3, indicating that a national injunction requires a class-action suit and that lower courts must specifically outline their jurisdiction for issuing such injunctions. While some justices appeared to validate the administration’s move to challenge the court’s authority, it did not alter the order’s fate, which remains blocked by several federal courts subsequent to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Understanding Trump’s Executive Order

The executive order in question, signed on January 20th—the first day of Trump’s second term—directs U.S. agencies not to issue citizenship documents for children born to undocumented immigrants or those without at least one American or legal permanent resident parent. The order seeks to reinterpret the 14th Amendment, which asserts that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen.

However, the language proposed by Trump’s officials has faced legal challenges, intending to clarify that children born to illegal immigrants or temporary visa holders would not gain citizenship by birthright.

Public Reaction to Trump’s Order

The birthright citizenship order has drawn strong backlash from Democrats and some Republicans, with criticisms highlighting that the U.S. is among approximately 30 nations that grant birthright citizenship. More than 22 states and various immigration advocacy groups have promptly challenged the legality of the order in court.

Its legal standing remains uncertain; as of now, no court has upheld the Trump administration’s efforts to implement the order. Many, including critics, have voiced concerns about the confusion and anxiety it has generated among Americans and residents lacking permanent citizenship.

CASA lawyer William Powell noted the sheer stress and fear felt by those affected, remarking that the situation is perplexing for many and guarantees regarding the order’s enforcement are hard to come by.