VERDICT: CONTEXT NEEDED
President Trump signed an executive order on January 20, 2025 attempting to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and those on temporary visas. The order would apply to births occurring 30+ days after signing (after February 19, 2025). However, the order is NOT in effect as of December 2025. Federal judges in Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts issued injunctions, the 9th Circuit ruled it "contradicts the plain language of the 14th Amendment," and the Supreme Court agreed on December 5, 2025 to hear the case. A ruling is expected in June/July 2026. The outcome will determine whether 127 years of constitutional precedent established by Wong Kim Ark (1898) will stand.
On his first day in office, President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." The order directs federal agencies to deny citizenship documentation to children born in the United States if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth.
The ACLU filed a lawsuit within hours of the signing. Subsequently, a coalition including 22 states, the Asian Law Caucus, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and Stop AAPI Hate joined legal challenges. Every court that has ruled on the order has blocked it, finding it violates the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause and contradicts the Supreme Court's 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
The legal battle is now headed to the Supreme Court, which will issue a definitive ruling on whether the President can unilaterally reinterpret constitutional citizenship requirements.
What the Executive Order Says
Executive Order 14160, signed on January 20, 2025, instructs federal agencies to interpret the 14th Amendment's phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" narrowly. The order claims this phrase excludes: [10]
- Children born to mothers who are unlawfully present in the United States
- Children born to mothers on temporary visas (tourist, student, work visas) whose fathers are not citizens or permanent residents
The order applies only to children born 30 days or more after signing (February 19, 2025 onwards). It would require at least one parent to be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for a child born in the U.S. to automatically receive citizenship. [3]
The Constitutional Question
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, 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."
The Administration's Interpretation
The executive order argues that parents who are not lawfully present or are on temporary visas are not fully "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Administration officials claim this interpretation restores the "original meaning" of the 14th Amendment. [10]
The Challengers' Position
Constitutional scholars and civil rights organizations argue this interpretation directly contradicts 127 years of Supreme Court precedent. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" has been consistently interpreted to exclude only: [7]
- Children of foreign diplomats (who have diplomatic immunity)
- Children born on foreign ships in U.S. waters
- Children of enemy forces occupying U.S. territory
The Ogletree Institute at Harvard Law notes that undocumented immigrants are clearly "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law because they can be arrested, prosecuted, and deported - all exercises of jurisdiction. [7]
The Wong Kim Ark Precedent (1898)
The controlling Supreme Court case on birthright citizenship is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were themselves prohibited from becoming citizens under the Chinese Exclusion Act. [11]
The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that Wong was a U.S. citizen by birth, holding that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to "all persons born... in the United States" meant exactly what it said. The Court wrote:
"The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens."
- Justice Horace Gray, United States v. Wong Kim Ark [11]
Federal Statutory Codification
The principle of birthright citizenship has been codified into federal law since 1940:
- Nationality Act of 1940: First comprehensive federal statute on citizenship at birth
- Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952: Codified in 8 U.S.C. Section 1401(a), stating that anyone "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a citizen at birth
These laws remain in effect. The executive order does not repeal them but instead directs agencies to interpret them differently. [14]
The Legal Challenges
Within hours of the executive order's signing, lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions. Here is the timeline of legal actions:
| Date | Event | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 20, 2025 | Executive Order signed | Order issued |
| Jan 20, 2025 | ACLU files lawsuit in federal court | Suit filed within hours |
| Jan 23, 2025 | Federal judge in Seattle issues TRO | ORDER BLOCKED |
| Jan 24, 2025 | Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts issue injunctions | ORDER BLOCKED |
| Mar 15, 2025 | 9th Circuit upholds injunction | "Contradicts plain language of 14th Amendment" |
| Jun 27, 2025 | Supreme Court rules on scope of injunctions | Narrowed but did NOT vacate injunctions |
| Jul 10, 2025 | Barbara v. Trump class action certified | Nationwide class protection granted |
| Dec 5, 2025 | Supreme Court agrees to hear case | Oral arguments scheduled for Spring 2026 |
| Jun/Jul 2026 | Supreme Court ruling expected | TBD - Will determine constitutional question |
What the Courts Have Said
District Court Injunctions (January 2025)
Within days of the order's signing, federal judges in Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts issued preliminary injunctions blocking implementation. Judge John Coughenour in Seattle called the order "blatantly unconstitutional" during the temporary restraining order hearing. [13]
9th Circuit Ruling (March 2025)
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the injunction, writing:
"The executive order contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment and 127 years of Supreme Court precedent. The President cannot unilaterally redefine constitutional terms that the courts have consistently interpreted for over a century."
- 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 15, 2025 [9]
Supreme Court Actions (2025)
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on the government's request to stay the injunctions. The Court narrowed the scope of the injunctions - limiting them to the specific plaintiffs rather than nationwide - but critically did not vacate them. [15]
However, on July 10, 2025, the Barbara v. Trump class action was certified, extending protection to a nationwide class of potentially affected families. [16]
On December 5, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, agreeing to hear the case. Oral arguments are expected in Spring 2026, with a ruling anticipated in June or July 2026. [2]
The Coalition Against the Order
A broad coalition has formed to challenge the executive order, including:
Civil Rights Organizations
- ACLU: Lead plaintiff in the initial lawsuit, filing within hours of the signing [1]
- NAACP Legal Defense Fund: Joined as amicus, emphasizing historical parallels to Dred Scott [5]
- Asian Law Caucus: Co-plaintiff, noting the order's direct conflict with Wong Kim Ark [4]
- Stop AAPI Hate: Filed impact analysis documenting potential effects on Asian American communities [6]
State Attorneys General
22 states have joined legal challenges, led by California, New York, and Washington. State AGs argue the order would create administrative chaos for birth registration and school enrollment.
The executive order is NOT in effect. As of December 2025:
- All children born in the United States continue to receive citizenship regardless of parental status
- Federal agencies are enjoined from implementing the order's provisions
- The order remains legally blocked pending Supreme Court review
- No birth certificates have been denied based on parental immigration status
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Spring 2026, with a decision expected by the end of the term in June or July 2026. The possible outcomes include:
| Scenario | What It Means | Implications |
|---|---|---|
| Order Struck Down | Wong Kim Ark precedent affirmed | 127-year precedent continues; birthright citizenship unchanged |
| Order Upheld | New interpretation of 14th Amendment | Hundreds of thousands of U.S.-born children could lose citizenship rights |
| Narrow Ruling | Order blocked on procedural/statutory grounds | Constitutional question left for another day; possible future legislation |
The Core Arguments
Administration's Position
The administration argues that:
- The 14th Amendment's framers did not intend to grant citizenship to children of "transient" or "illegal" aliens
- The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "complete" allegiance to the U.S.
- Wong Kim Ark is distinguishable because the parents were legal permanent residents
- The executive has authority to interpret the Constitution in carrying out immigration enforcement
Challengers' Position
Constitutional scholars and civil rights groups counter that:
- The plain text of the 14th Amendment says "all persons born" - not "all persons born to citizens"
- Wong Kim Ark explicitly rejected the "complete allegiance" interpretation
- Undocumented immigrants are clearly "subject to the jurisdiction" because U.S. law applies to them (arrest, prosecution, deportation)
- The President cannot unilaterally override constitutional text and Supreme Court precedent
Historical Context: Why the 14th Amendment Exists
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, three years after the end of the Civil War. Its Citizenship Clause was a direct response to the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which held that Black Americans - whether free or enslaved - could never be U.S. citizens.
The NAACP Legal Defense Fund emphasized this history in their amicus brief:
"The Citizenship Clause was specifically designed to prevent the government from defining away citizenship rights based on ancestry, parentage, or perceived 'foreignness.' This executive order resurrects the very constitutional evil the 14th Amendment was designed to eliminate."
- NAACP Legal Defense Fund [5]
The birthright citizenship executive order represents a direct challenge to 127 years of constitutional precedent. As of December 2025, the order is NOT in effect - every federal court that has ruled on it has blocked implementation.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case ensures a definitive ruling in 2026. The outcome will either:
- Affirm the long-standing interpretation that all persons born on U.S. soil are citizens, or
- Overturn Wong Kim Ark and fundamentally change who qualifies for birthright citizenship
Until the Supreme Court rules, birthright citizenship remains the law of the land. Any claims that the order is currently being enforced are FALSE.