Birthright Citizenship Challenged – 14 Amendment in the Crosshairs

Gavel on 14th Amendment document with Constitution background

The battle over birthright citizenship has reached a boiling point as Democratic-led states challenge Trump’s executive order, vowing to protect constitutional rights.

Quick Takes

  • A Seattle federal judge will hear a multi-state lawsuit against Trump’s birthright citizenship order.
  • 22 states and immigrant rights groups have filed five lawsuits, contesting the executive order.
  • The order may impact hundreds of thousands of people if it takes effect on February 19.
  • Democratic states claim it unlawfully strips citizenship based on parentage and violates the 14th Amendment.

Democratic States Stand Firm

Four states — Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington — are leading a lawsuit against President Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship. These states argue it threatens constitutional rights by undermining the 14th Amendment, which has historically secured citizenship for all born in the United States. The states are urging a Seattle federal court to issue an injunction to prevent the order from taking effect while claiming the order is more political than legal.

This legal confrontation underscores a battle over national identity, as Trump’s order denies automatic citizenship to children of noncitizens. It disputes long-standing interpretations of the 14th Amendment, a central pillar of American citizenship. The lawsuit is part of a broader effort, involving 22 states and multiple lawsuits, to uphold the constitutional provision that has been in place for over a century.

Interpreting the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Critics of Trump’s order emphasize that presidents don’t possess the power to amend constitutional rights. The administration argues children of noncitizens aren’t under U.S. jurisdiction, contradicting the Amendment’s interpretation.

The 1898 Supreme Court case, Wong Kim Ark, upheld birthright citizenship, interpreting it to apply broadly, although some argue it covers only children of legal immigrants.

Implications for Children

The lawsuit warns that revoking birthright citizenship could see roughly 150,000 children annually suffer loss of healthcare and education access. Deportation fears grow for families, with potential for children to end up stateless. Financial strains may hit state programs with decreased federal funding. Attorneys General like New Jersey’s Matthew Platkin criticize the executive order as an unconstitutional attack not only on legal principles but on American values themselves.

As the legal process unfolds, these states are steadfast in their resolve to maintain traditional, constitutional principles of citizenship instead of ceding ground to an order they deem politically fueled and legally unsound.