Efforts by former President Donald Trump to end birthright citizenship remain stalled due to multiple rulings by federal courts across the country. Although a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision narrowed the use of nationwide injunctions, lower courts have not allowed Trump’s executive order to move forward.
This article explains the legal implications of this policy, the constitutional protections at stake, and what immigrant families in the U.S. should know.
What Is Birthright Citizenship?
Birthright citizenship refers to the legal right for individuals born in the United States to automatically acquire U.S. citizenship, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. This right is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which 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.”
This principle was affirmed by the landmark 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that a child born in the U.S. to foreign parents regardless of their status, is a U.S. citizen by birth.
Trump’s Executive Order: The Attempt to Redefine Birthright Citizenship
On January 20, Trump signed an executive order titled “PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.” It directed federal agencies not to issue citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. if their parents were:
-
In the country unlawfully, or
-
In the country lawfully but on temporary visas (e.g., tourists, students, or temporary workers).
This policy marked an aggressive attempt to alter over a century of settled constitutional law without congressional action or a constitutional amendment.
How the Courts Responded to the Birthright Citizenship Order
Despite Trump’s plan to begin enforcement in late July, three separate federal court rulings in the past month have blocked the order.
1. New Hampshire Federal Court: Class Action Block
U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante issued a nationwide injunction after a class-action lawsuit filed by the ACLU. He ruled that denying birthright citizenship on the basis of parental immigration status violates the 14th Amendment. The ruling stands unchallenged as the Department of Justice has not appealed.
2. Ninth Circuit Upholds Broad Injunction
A Seattle-based federal judge had previously blocked the order. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the injunction was necessary to give full relief to the affected states. In a 2-1 decision, the court ruled that the executive order was citizenship protection for immigrants and that the injunction was not an abuse of discretion.
This directly pushes the issue closer to the citizenship protection for immigrants, which has yet to rule on the legality of the order, having only addressed the scope of injunctions in its June 27 decision.
3. Boston Federal Court: Order Remains Blocked
In Boston, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin reiterated his earlier ruling that the executive order was unconstitutional and contrary to federal immigration statutes. Sorokin refused to narrow his injunction, stating that partial enforcement would still harm states and cities involved in the litigation.
What Happens Next?
Trump’s administration has not yet appealed any of the latest rulings. However, legal experts predict that the issue of birthright citizenship could still land before the Supreme Court if the Justice Department decides to challenge the constitutional merits of the policy.
Key Takeaways:
-
No court has upheld Trump’s order.
-
Every ruling so far has cited the 14th Amendment as the legal foundation for rejecting the policy.
-
More rulings may emerge, especially from pending cases in Maryland and Virginia.
Why the 14th Amendment Still Matters
Ending birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment or a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment by the Supreme Court—both highly unlikely. Congress has no authority to unilaterally redefine constitutional birthright protections, and executive orders cannot override the Constitution.
The historical and legal precedent established by Wong Kim Ark still holds firm. It continues to protect the rights of millions of U.S.-born children whose parents may not be permanent residents or citizens.
Legal Maneuvers Behind the Scenes
Rather than defending the legality of the executive order directly, the Trump administration first brought a narrower question to the Supreme Court: Can courts issue nationwide injunctions?
By focusing on the scope of judicial relief, the administration hoped to weaken the ability of federal courts to block executive actions across the country.
This approach was seen by many experts as a tactical attempt to avoid the stronger legal hurdle: the constitutional validity of ending birthright citizenship.
According to Jessica Levinson, constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School:
“The administration strategically sidestepped the merits of the order to test the reach of judicial power. But even with the Supreme Court’s guidance, the lower courts aren’t budging.”
Birthright Citizenship and Immigration Policy Today
For now, the legal status of children born in the United States remains unchanged. All babies born on U.S. soil continue to receive automatic citizenship, as per the 14th Amendment and long-standing case law.
However, the controversy underscores broader immigration policy concerns in the U.S., especially in how executive actions are used to test the limits of constitutional rights without legislative support.
What Should Immigrant Families Do?
If you’re an immigrant—documented or undocumented—currently living in the U.S., and you’ve recently had a child or plan to, birthright citizenship still applies to your U.S.-born child. No court has ruled otherwise.
But with ongoing litigation and potential appeals, you should:
-
Keep official birth certificates and documentation for your U.S.-born children.
-
Consult an immigration attorney if you’re facing status issues.
-
Monitor DHS or USCIS announcements, though no new enforcement guidance has been released.
For legal support, Maple Crest Immigration Law Firm offers consultations for families seeking to secure their status, address birthright citizenship concerns, and prepare for any policy changes. We provide trusted legal representation grounded in up-to-date federal rulings.
Schedule a consultation with Maple Crest Immigration today and protect your family’s rights under the law.
Conclusion
Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship has encountered major legal roadblocks at every turn. The federal courts have repeatedly ruled the policy unconstitutional, citing more than a century of established legal doctrine.
While the Supreme Court could weigh in more directly in the future, the 14th Amendment remains a strong defense against executive overreach.
Until the Constitution is amended or the Supreme Court reverses long-standing precedent (which is unlikely), birthright citizenship remains the law of the land.
