THE LEGAL BATTLE OVER BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN TRUMP’S ORDER

With the swearing in of Trump, his administration is attempting to shake things up regarding who can be a US citizen. On his first day in office, he signed something in opposition to a long-time rule in the Constitution that says anyone born in the US automatically gets citizenship. This rule has been in place for over 150 years.

Trump ordered federal agencies to take away birthright citizenship from children whose parents are in the country illegally. It also would deny citizenship to children born to parents on work or study visas, tourist visas, or parents who aren’t US citizens or green card holders. If it happens, this could change who gets passports, social security numbers, and certificates of citizenship. The rule is expected to take effect on February 19th if it stands.

The decision was challenged within hours in court as unconstitutional. A coalition of immigrant rights groups, expecting that to happen, filed a lawsuit Monday evening in federal court in New Hampshire, pleading to the court to declare the order illegal and prevent its enforcement by the government.

The main argument of the suit is that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly enshrined this principle into the text of our Constitution because they wanted to ensure that children born in America could not have their citizenship stripped away by anyone, including the President.

The attorney generals of 22 Democratic-led states, Washington, DC and San Francisco, weighed in with a similar lawsuit filed in federal courts in Seattle and Boston on Tuesday.

Here is what you need to know about this latest Trump order on birthright citizenship.

An overview of birthright citizenship

Birthright citizenship refers to when one becomes a citizen simply because they were born in that country. In the United States, this notion falls under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. This enables it to make the statement that 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 has been an amendment since 1868, which was basically included to ensure that former slaves were regarded as citizens following the Civil War.

Those against open immigration see this law as promoting illegal entry into the US or undocumented residence within its borders. Many who feel this way think that once their children are born in the United States, they are considered American citizens and can eventually enable their parents to gain residency status as well.

In an attempt to halt illegal immigration, Trump signed an executive order shortly after his swearing-in. His order immediately encountered legal challenges across the country, with at least five lawsuits filed from 22 states and several immigrant rights groups. The states of Washington, Arizona, Oregon, and Illinois filed the first to be heard in court.

The temporary order of the court and the legal battles

The first legal test of the decision by President Donald Trump to deny US citizenship to children born of parents living in the country without permission did not go terribly well.

No sooner had one Justice Department lawyer started making his argument Thursday, January 23, 2025, in a Seattle courtroom than US District Judge John C. Coughenour started asking him a string of sharp questions and referring to the order as clearly unconstitutional. Coughenour issued a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of the immigration ban.

In other words, the judge put a temporary hold on the administration’s plan to enforce Trump’s order nationwide for the next two weeks. During this time, both sides will share more details about the legal issues related to the executive order. Coughenour has scheduled another hearing for February 6, 2025, to talk about whether to put a longer stop on the executive order while the case continues.

At the same time, other lawsuits challenging the order are getting started, too. There is a hearing coming up in a case from Maryland brought by CASA, a non-profit body that fights for immigrant rights, set for February 5 at the US District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland.

Another lawsuit, led by New Jersey and involving 18 states, the District of Columbia, and San Francisco, along with a challenge from the Brazilian Worker Center in Massachusetts, hasn’t set any hearings yet.

In addition to saying the executive order is unconstitutional, the states argue it would risk deporting affected kids and leaving many without a nationality. They claim it would strip them of their rights and stop them from being part of economic and community life.

The position of Trump’s administration

The Justice Department will file some documents next week in a bid to have the judge not extend the injunction beyond its current endpoint. The department has said that it will continue to fight hard to defend the order. The Trump administration looks forward to making a strong case to the court and the American people, who they believe want the laws enforced.

But the attorney general of Washington state, Democrat Nick Brown, doesn’t believe the Justice Department has any reason to believe it will succeed in appealing Coughenour’s ruling-even to the US Supreme Court where the justices sit with a conservative 6-3 majority, including three appointees by Trump. Democrats believe that if you were born on American soil, you are an American citizen, and there is nothing the president can do to change that.

Democratic-led states have continued to argue they did from the very start under the Trump rule, more than 150,000 babies born in the United States annually would be denied their rightful citizenship. Indeed, within days of Trump signing the rule, at least six lawsuits were filed, mostly by civil rights groups and Democratic attorneys general from 22 states.

Democratic attorneys general for the states argue that the meaning of the citizenship clause was decided 127 years ago when the nation’s high court said such children – born in the United States to parents not citizens of this country – were legally entitled through the nation’s Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Adopted in 1868, shortly after the end of the US Civil War, it overturned the so-called 1857 Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision.

In a filing filed late Wednesday, the Justice Department termed the order an “integral part” of Trump’s effort to address this country’s broken immigration system and the ongoing crisis at the southern border.

On January 21, 36 of Trump’s Republican backers in the US House of Representatives filed a companion bill to reserve automatic citizenship solely to the children of US citizens or green card holders.

Get help!

With these unsettling events that have greeted the immigration landscape in the US, there is a lot of uproar and confusion about how immigrants can secure their rights. However, if you have an immigration attorney at your corner, then you won’t have to be bothered about anything.

At Gehi and Associates, we are dedicated to protecting our client’s interests. You can be sure we will keep tabs on the current legal battle and how it affects your rights. You can find out more about us by contacting us today!