Attorneys general from 22 states have filed a lawsuit to block President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, a practice that has guaranteed U.S. citizenship for children born in the country, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, for over a century.
Trump’s executive order, issued late Monday, is a move he promised during his presidential campaign, but whether it will succeed is still up in the air. The legal battle over this issue is expected to be long and complex, especially since it involves a constitutional right.
Democratic attorneys general and immigrant rights groups argue that birthright citizenship is settled law. New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin made it clear: “The president cannot, with a stroke of a pen, write the 14th Amendment out of existence, period.”
In response, the White House dismissed the lawsuits as just another part of the Left’s resistance to Trump, with deputy press secretary Harrison Fields saying, “Radical Leftists can either swim against the tide or get on board and work with President Trump.”
For Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who is the first Chinese American elected to the position and a U.S. citizen by birthright, this issue is personal. He said, “The 14th Amendment says what it means, and it means what it says — if you are born on American soil, you are an American. Period. Full stop.”
Tong added that even though Trump’s position is legally wrong, it could still cause harm to American families, like his own.
What is birthright citizenship?
At the heart of the case is whether children born in the U.S. should automatically be granted citizenship, no matter the immigration status of their parents. Under the current system, even children of parents who are here on tourist visas or illegally can become U.S. citizens if born on American soil.
This right is grounded in the 14th Amendment, which supporters argue makes the case clear. However, Trump and his allies disagree, claiming that the amendment’s language doesn’t guarantee automatic citizenship and that stricter rules are needed.
The U.S. is one of about 30 countries that grants birthright citizenship — a concept known as jus soli or “right of the soil.” Most of these countries are in the Americas, including Canada and Mexico. Other nations, however, grant citizenship based on whether at least one parent is a citizen (jus sanguinis, or “right of blood”), or have modified versions of birthright citizenship that restrict it to children of parents who are legally in the country.
What does Trump’s executive order say?
Trump’s new order challenges the idea that the 14th Amendment automatically grants U.S. citizenship to anyone born in the country.
The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, 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.”
Trump’s order argues that children born to noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., and therefore shouldn’t automatically be granted citizenship. It specifically excludes kids born to parents who are not U.S. citizens or legal residents, or who are in the country temporarily.
The order also directs federal agencies to stop recognizing citizenship for these groups, and it takes effect on February 19, 2025. However, it’s unclear if this would apply retroactively to people who’ve already received birthright citizenship.
Where does this issue come from?
The idea of birthright citizenship hasn’t always been clear-cut. While the 14th Amendment established citizenship for most people born in the U.S., Native Americans weren’t granted citizenship until 1924.
A key Supreme Court case in 1898 helped solidify the idea of birthright citizenship. Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents, was denied reentry into the U.S. after a trip abroad, with the government arguing he wasn’t a citizen. The Supreme Court ruled that because he was born in the U.S., he was indeed a citizen — a decision that has been central to the birthright citizenship debate.
However, some who favor stricter immigration laws argue that this ruling doesn’t necessarily apply to children born to undocumented parents.
The issue came up again in Arizona back in 2011, when lawmakers pushed a bill aimed at challenging birthright citizenship, but it never passed. Back then, supporters of the bill said they didn’t expect all states to adopt it — just that they wanted to spark a legal battle.
How has Trump’s order been received?
The reaction to Trump’s order has been swift and widespread. In addition to the states suing to block the order, groups like the ACLU and immigrant rights advocates have also filed lawsuits.
One lawsuit, filed in New Hampshire, argues that the order is unconstitutional and that it harms families like that of a woman, identified as “Carmen,” who is pregnant but not a U.S. citizen. She’s lived in the U.S. for more than 15 years and has a pending visa application that could lead to permanent status. The lawsuit says denying birthright citizenship to children like hers would cause “grave injury” by stripping them of their full membership in U.S. society.
A total of 22 states, including New Jersey, California, New York, and Illinois, have joined the fight against the order. Some states, like Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington, have filed their own separate lawsuits.
The legal battles are just beginning, and it’s unclear how the courts will ultimately decide on the issue of birthright citizenship.
