President Donald Trump’s attempt to take away the citizenship of millions of Americans

President Trump’s executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”, issued on January 20, 2025, seeks to limit birthright citizenship. It proposes that children born in the U.S. would be granted citizenship if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident at the time of the child’s birth. This order has sparked significant legal challenges, as it contradicts the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

The litigants challenging the executive order include immigrant rights groups, 22 state attorneys general, and expectant parents whose children would be affected by the policy. The Trump administration argues that the executive order should take effect while legal challenges proceed, while opponents contend that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment and over 120 years of Supreme Court precedent.

This case  consolidates three lawsuits: Trump v. CASA, Inc., Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey. The litigants challenging the executive order include immigrant rights groups, 22 state attorneys general, and expectant parents whose children would be affected by the policy. The Trump administration argues that the executive order should take effect while legal challenges proceed.

Federal judges in states like Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington have issued nationwide injunctions to prevent the order from taking effect. The Supreme Court is now reviewing these cases, with arguments centered on whether the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment can be reinterpreted to exclude certain groups.

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to consider ending the judicial power for sweeping injunctions, but did not ask for a ruling on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship.

Therefore , at this point, the court is  tasked with only with deciding whether lower courts can — as they’ve done — issue nationwide injunctions when striking down Trump’s order, as opposed to issuing relief to only those directly involved in litigation. The court could issue a ruling dealing only with the scope of the injunctions issued by the lower courts or it can rule on the question of the constitutionality of the executive order.  During oral argument on May 14, 2025, Justice Kagan said that since the two issues are related, the injunction is keeping the executive order from going into effect. Accordingly, she asserts that the Trump administration should have asked the Supreme Court to rule on the birthright citizenship instead of the injunctions. There is widespread agreement with this assertion.

President Trump justifies his executive order by arguing that the 14th Amendment has never been interpreted to grant citizenship universally to everyone born within U.S. borders. His administration claims that the amendment was not intended to apply to children born to parents who are unlawfully present or those who were only temporarily in the country. The order asserts that citizenship should be reserved for those with deeper ties to the nation, such as having at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

The birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment   grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) confirmed the principle of jus soli (birthplace-based citizenship), ruling that individuals born in the U.S. are citizens, even if their parents are not U.S. citizens.

Legal scholars have overwhelmingly criticized President Trump’s attempt to reinterpret birthright citizenship through executive action. Many argue that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment has been settled law for over a century, particularly following the United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) decision, which affirmed that nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil are citizens, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Article VI of the constitution says that the constitution laws and treaties of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land and on the question of birth right citizenship the supreme law of the land is expressed in this case.

The Supreme Court should order that the lower court’s rulings enjoining enforcement of President Trumps executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship should be made permanent for three reasons. First: The President’s Executive Order, which is not law, alone cannot limit birthright citizenship, a right granted by The Fourteenth Amendment to The U.S. constitution. To change or limit the rights granted by the amendment would likely require a constitutional amendment. A  proposal would have to  pass by  the House and Senate with a two-thirds majority and then be ratified by 38 state legislatures. Second: The President’s Executive Order contradicts Supreme Court precedent and lacks constitutional authority. Attorneys general from 22 states and several immigrant rights advocates have filed lawsuits against the administration, arguing that the order violates the plain text of the 14th Amendment. Judges across the country have already blocked the order from taking effect, citing concerns over its legality. Third, the constitution provides that the constitution laws and treaties of the Unite States are the supreme law of the land. That means that the constitution and the interpretation thereof cannot be limited or in any way changed by a mere executive order.

The Fourteenth Amendment to The U.S. constitution, ratified in 1868, providing that all person born or nationalized in the United Stares are citizens of the United State and the state wherein they reside, was a cornerstone of Reconstruction policy following the Civil War. Its primary goal was to grant citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and formerly enslaved individuals. The amendment sought to ensure that all persons born or naturalized in the United States were recognized as citizens and protected under the law, preventing states from infringing upon their rights.

The President’s interpretation of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, if adopted. would mean the loss of citizenship on the national and state levels of millions of Americans and the loss of many of the individual liberties and safeguards from federal overreach and state -level discrimination they now enjoy. The Americans who would lose their national and state citizenships by this executive order would become people without a country (none people). They would become unable to seek protection and safety from or by any nation in the world. The Supreme Court of The United States cannot and should not let that happen.