Trump’s Bid to End Birthright Citizenship: A Constitutional Showdown

By Boncopia team| Published May 11, 2025 | Boncopia.com

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump kicked off his second term with a seismic move: Executive Order 14156, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” This order aimed to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas—a direct challenge to over 125 years of legal precedent. The move has sparked fierce legal battles, with federal courts blocking the order as “blatantly unconstitutional” and the Supreme Court now poised to weigh in. What’s at stake? Nothing less than the heart of American identity, rooted in the 14th Amendment. Let’s unpack this high-stakes drama and what it means for the nation.

The Executive Order: A Bold and Divisive Stroke

On his first day back in office, Trump signed Executive Order 14156, directing federal agencies to deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order claims to “protect the value” of American citizenship by curbing what Trump calls an “abuse” of the system, particularly at the southern border. Supporters argue it’s a necessary step to deter illegal immigration, with some estimates suggesting over 150,000 babies are born annually to non-citizen parents.

But the backlash was swift. Critics, including 22 Democratic state attorneys general, immigrant rights groups, and expectant mothers, slammed the order as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. They argue it creates a “cloud of uncertainty” over newborns’ rights and risks rendering thousands stateless. Within days, federal judges in Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Hampshire issued nationwide injunctions, halting the order’s implementation.

The 14th Amendment: America’s Citizenship Bedrock

At the core of this fight is the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to secure citizenship for freed Black Americans after the Civil War. Its Citizenship Clause is clear: “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.” For over a century, this has been interpreted to grant automatic citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ status.

The landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) cemented this principle. Wong, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents, was denied re-entry to the U.S. after a trip abroad. The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that the 14th Amendment guaranteed his citizenship, affirming that birthright citizenship applies broadly, with narrow exceptions like children of foreign diplomats or enemy combatants. This precedent has stood unchallenged for 127 years—until now.

Trump’s Argument: A Narrow Reading of “Jurisdiction”

The Trump administration’s case hinges on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It argues that children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders aren’t fully under U.S. jurisdiction because their parents owe allegiance to another country. This interpretation suggests the 14th Amendment was never meant to cover these groups.

Some conservative scholars, like those at The Heritage Foundation, back this view, claiming the amendment’s original intent aligned with the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which excluded those “subject to any foreign power.” They argue Trump’s order is a “course correction” to restore this meaning. Yet most legal experts dismiss this as a fringe theory. The Wong Kim Ark decision explicitly rejected similar arguments, and courts have consistently upheld that undocumented immigrants are subject to U.S. laws—hence, their children are citizens.

Legal Challenges: A Nationwide Pushback

The executive order faced immediate resistance. On January 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee in Seattle, issued a 14-day restraining order, calling the policy “blatantly unconstitutional.” By February 5, Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland issued a preliminary injunction, citing Wong Kim Ark as settled law. Other courts followed, with plaintiffs ranging from states like Washington and New Jersey to advocacy groups like the ACLU and LULAC.

These lawsuits argue the order violates the 14th Amendment and creates chaos. For example, a child born in New Jersey might be a citizen, but one born in Tennessee could be deportable, undermining equal protection. Critics also warn of long-term harms, like increased statelessness and barriers to federal benefits for affected children. Over 200 House Democrats filed an amicus brief, calling the order an “unprecedented assault” on the Constitution.

The Supreme Court Showdown

Frustrated by lower court blocks, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, asking to lift the nationwide injunctions or at least allow planning for the policy’s implementation. On April 17, 2025, the Court agreed to hear arguments on May 15, with a decision expected by late June or early July.

The Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump appointees, has some wondering if it might revisit Wong Kim Ark. However, legal scholars like Sandra Rierson argue the justices, who often prioritize history and tradition, are unlikely to overturn such a clear precedent. The administration has also framed the case as a chance to curb “universal” injunctions by lower courts, which some justices have criticized. This dual focus—citizenship and judicial power—makes the outcome unpredictable.

Why It Matters: Identity, Rights, and the Future

Birthright citizenship, or jus soli (right of the soil), is a cornerstone of American democracy, shared by only about 30 countries, including Canada and Mexico. Ending it could reshape who gets to call themselves American, potentially creating a permanent underclass of U.S.-born residents without citizenship. Critics argue this aligns with a broader anti-immigrant agenda, noting historical parallels to anti-Chinese sentiment during Wong Kim Ark’s era.

The debate also raises deeper questions about constitutional authority. Can a president unilaterally reinterpret the Constitution? Most scholars say no—only a constitutional amendment, requiring two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of states, could change birthright citizenship. Yet Trump’s push tests the limits of executive power in a polarized era.

What’s Next?

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments, the nation watches closely. Will the justices uphold Wong Kim Ark and the 14th Amendment’s plain text, or will they entertain a reinterpretation that could upend a century of precedent? The decision will ripple far beyond immigration, touching on civil rights, judicial authority, and the very definition of “American.”

For now, the injunctions hold, and birthright citizenship remains intact. But with Trump vowing to fight on, this saga is far from over. Stay tuned to Boncopia.com for updates as this historic case unfolds.

Thought Questions for Readers:

1. Do you think the Supreme Court should stick to the Wong Kim Ark precedent, or is there room to reinterpret the 14th Amendment’s “jurisdiction” clause?

2. How might ending birthright citizenship affect the U.S.’s identity as a nation of immigrants?

3. Should presidents have the power to challenge constitutional interpretations through executive orders, or is this a dangerous precedent?

   We’d love to hear your thoughts! Share your answers in the comments below or join the conversation on X.