I am the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Douglas Miller HRM, a legal and political consulting firm located at 11902 Central Avenue, Chino, California 91710
I am a graduate of Alabama State University with B.S. degree in Social Studies an English and a graduate of Howard School of law with a Doctor of Jurisprudence, with further studies at The University of Maryland, The University of Delaware, The United State Armed Forces Institute and The West Virginia College of Graduate Studies.
In addition to serving as a full – time tenured Associate Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Political Science Department of West Virginia State College (now West Virginia State University) I maintained a private law practice representing clients in mostly criminal and employment discrimination cases. While also consulting private companies and government agencies including the following:
FMC Corporation
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company
The West Virginia Department of Labor
The West Virginia Department of Public Safety
The West Virginia Department of Highways
The United States Army
The United States Department of Transportation
The West Virginia Human Rights Commission
Further, I was a hearing examiner for the West Virginia Human Rights Commission and an administrative law judge for the West Virginia Workers Compensation Office of Judges
I have received numerous honors and awards for my academic and professional and community service including the following:
West Virginia State University Out Standing Educator of the Year (1988)
West Virginia State University Instructor of the Year (1990)
West Virginia State University Teacher of the Year (1991)
Member: Phi Alpha Theta, The National History Honor Society
Member: Pi Sigma Alpha, The National Political Science Honor Society
Member: Alpha Mu Gamma, The International Foreign Language Honor Society
Man of The Year: Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. Alpha Iota Lambda Chapter
Member: Alpha Mu Gamma, The International Foreign Language Honor Society
Who’s Who in West Virginia
Who’s Who in American Law
Who’s Who Among African Americans
Martindale- Hubbell BV rating
I am a member of the bar of The West Virginia State Bar Association and admitted to practice before The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, The United States District Courts of The Southern and Northen Districts of West Virginia, The United States Circuit Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits and The United States Supreme Court,
My active involvement in the Charleston, West Viriginia community included the following:
Chair of the Multi-fields Allocation Panel of The United Way of Kanawha County, West Virginia
Chair of the Youth Services Allocation Panel of the United Way of Kanawha County., West Virginia
Board of Directors of the United Way of Kanawha County, West Virginia
Board of Directors Buckskin Counsel Boy Scouts of America
Board of Directors of The Community Council of Kanawha- Putnam Counties, West Virginia
Board of Directors West Virginia State College Foundation
Reported cases:
Burk V. Wymer, 172 West Virginia 478, 307 S.E.2d. 647
United States V. Philip Dorlouies, 107 F. 3d. 248
Kennedy V. Mc Donald’s Corporation, (D.C. W. Va. 1985), 37 FEP Cases 1466.
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.
Douglas Miller HRM 