Key Takeaways
- EO-14160, passed by U.S. President Donald Trump at the beginning of his term in office, aims to restrict birthright citizenship.
- Support for birthright citizenship, and against EO-14160 includes its relationship to constitutional authority, the plain language used, the specifics of the affected population, unclear regulation, and the safe population.
- Opposition to birthright citizenship, and therefore for EO-14160 include challenges to the Fourteenth amendment, concerns of national security, its potential for encouragement of illegal immigration, a drain on public resources, and the necessity of broad executive orders.
What is the Controversy Over Birthright Citizenship?
Ever since Executive Order 14160 (EO-14160) was enacted by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, the citizenship status of 225,00 children born annually to undocumented parents in the United States remains under ongoing litigation.
EO-14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” is widely criticized for revoking birthright citizenship in the United States. Birthright citizenship refers to U.S.-born children immediately being granted citizenship, regardless of the parent’s immigration status. The exact definition arises from the language of the Fourteenth Amendment: “person[s] born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” The precedent of the Fourteenth Amendment has been in place for more than 150 years, and has withstood several Supreme Court challenges to limit its jurisdiction.
The United States is one of roughly thirty countries who offer “unrestricted bias” when granting citizenship, meaning anyone born on its soil automatically becomes a citizen. Currently, about 4.71 million American children live in a family with at least one undocumented parent, and 2.66 million of these children have two undocumented parents. This accounts for 6.4 percent and 3.6 percent, respectively, of all children in the United States.
What is the History of Birthright Citizenship in the U.S.?
The foundation of birthright citizenship in the United States lies under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868. Its Citizenship Clause guarantees citizenship to all persons “born or naturalized in the United States” and extends to all citizens the right to “equal protection under the laws.” While this provision was originally designed to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved people, it has since become the constitutional basis for recognizing individuals born on U.S. soil as American citizens.
A defining interpretation of this principle came in the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was born in California to parents who were Chinese citizens but legally residing in the United States. After visiting his parents in China at the age of 21, he was denied reentry on the grounds that he was not considered a citizen. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents was still a U.S. citizen, even if the parents themselves were ineligible for naturalization at the time. This decision established a significant precedent, affirming the principle of jus soli — the “right of the soil” — as a core element of American citizenship law.
Another case that reinforced the broad reach of constitutional protections was Plyler v. Doe (1982). In this case, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute that denied public education to children of undocumented immigrants. While the ruling did not directly address birthright citizenship, it reaffirmed that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied to “all persons” within the United States, regardless of citizenship status. This interpretation has played an important role in shaping legal debates about the rights of children born to undocumented parents.
Together, these rulings highlight the durability of the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections and provide a historical and judicial framework for ongoing discussions surrounding birthright citizenship. They demonstrate how the courts have consistently interpreted the Amendment to uphold broad access to citizenship and constitutional rights for individuals born in the United States.
Present Legislation
In the present day, the legal landscape is evolving through new executive and judicial actions. In January 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order seeks to challenge the prevailing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause by restricting automatic U.S. citizenship in specific cases. Under EO-14160, children would not be recognized as citizens at birth if their mother was unlawfully present in the United States at the time of birth and the father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. The same restriction would apply when the mother was lawfully present on a temporary visa, such as for work or study, and the father lacked either citizenship or lawful permanent residence.
What Arguments Support Birthright Citizenship?
Support for birthright citizenship stems from the constitutional authority and plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment, the economic benefit of immigrant populations, criticism of citizenship regulation, and promoting the reputation of America as a country built by immigrants.
Constitutional Authority & Plain Language
In total, 22 states and organizations have sued to block EO-14160, all citing its lack of constitutionality. EO-14160 was initially blocked in a district court in Seattle on January 27, 2025 on the basis it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Since birthright citizenship is a constitutional right, supporters argue the President does not possess the authority to remove it through an executive order. This January 27 ruling was supported by an appeals court on June 4, 2025, which wrote, “The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree.”
Plain language refers to the intended message of a law, even to those who do not possess legal expertise. Courts have rejected EO-14160 on the basis that it contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth amendment, including its interpretation at the time of writing. While supporters of EO-14160 have used the language “subject to [United States] jurisdiction” within the Fourteenth amendment to argue that children of undocumented immigrants are ineligible for citizenship, supporters of birthright citizenship point to the explanations by the primary author, John A. Bingham, in 1868, that “subject to the jurisdiction” includes a narrow range of people. For example, a major exception to birthright citizenship was Native Americans —– who were subject to their tribal nation law —– and the children of foreign diplomats. Therefore, even in the years immediately following the ratification of the Fourteenth amendment, Congress and the Supreme Court did not intend to exclude children of non-citizens or a broader application of “subject to jurisdiction,” as EO-14160 seeks to do now.
Targets Vulnerable Populations
Supporters argue removing birthright citizenship would negatively affect primary sectors of the economy and disproportionately affect lower economic classes. According to the Pew Research Center, 22 percent of professional jobs, 18 percent of leisure and hospitality, 16 percent of construction, 13 percent of manufacturing, and 5 percent of the agriculture sector are comprised of unauthorized immigrants. These undocumented immigrants still contribute to the U.S. economy through taxes, and collectively paid $96.7 billion in 2022 alone. Moreover, a third of these taxes go to programs illegal immigrants cannot access, such as social security, Medicare, or unemployment. Additionally, 60.4 percent of the households headed by an undocumented person are below the poverty line and 16 percent of undocumented families reported avoiding safety net programs, fearing it will negatively affect their immigration status. This suggests that undocumented immigrants do not drain public resources as opponents suggest, but actively contribute to the American economy through their labor, taxes, and spending power.
Unclear Regulation
With no clear system in place for families to prove their citizenship at hospitals or when travelling state lines, an appellate court warned on February 28th, 2025 that “Existing administrative systems will fail, states and localities will bear the costs of developing new systems for issuing birth certificates and verifying citizenship, and anxious parents-to-be will be caught in the middle.” The broad ban results in a complicated enforcement that varies by state. For example, while California advises hospitals to not write down immigration status of parents, Florida and Texas require this information and a tally of the cost to American taxpayers.
Immigrants Are Not Major Contributors to Crime
One of Trump’s major claims about immigrants is that “[Democrats] want sanctuary cities, which means crime and drugs and death.” Supporters argue the data that measure undocumented entries into the United States is inflated, as Pew Research Center points out that the data point marking 11 million entries to the country includes those who did not successfully enter. Moreover, supporters argue that even democrats are harsh on illegal immigration, as the current record for deportations in a single term is held by the Democratic Obama administration, at 1.57 million. However, research shows that immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens. The American Immigration Council finds this “true at the national, state, county, and neighborhood levels, and for both violent and non-violent crime”. Moreover, the already low rates of crime among immigrants dropped 60 percent from 1980 to 2022. Immigrants and their children typically poll high on measures of patriotism and respect for the U.S., even when compared to native-born citizens. Additionally, the chances of a native-born American committing espionage is about 1 in 13.1 million a year, or less than 1 percent.
What Arguments Criticize Birthright Citizenship?
The opposition to birthright citizenship comes from closer scrutiny of the Fourteenth Amendment, issues of over national security, fighting growth of illegal immigration, concerns over draining public resources, and the necessity of broad executive action.
Challenges to Fourteenth Amendment
Critics have argued that the language of the Fourteenth Amendment requires closer scrutiny to discern if it applies to children of illegal immigrants. Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter explained that the role of a judge is to interpret beyond plain language and understand complex legal principles. He says that definite interpretations fail “to account for what the Constitution actually says, and [fail] just as badly to understand what judges have no choice but to do.” Moreover, proponents point to other legislation like the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857 to confirm that the Fourteenth Amendment was not written to universally apply to everyone.
National Security
Promises to deport illegal aliens comprised a major part of Trump’s presidential campaign, and he cited national security as a major concern. Some outlets, such as Fox News, emphasize the security threat of illegal immigrants are ineligible for citizenship, falsely claiming that undocumented immigrants murder 2,158 Americans every year. Other concerns also include the prevalence of membership to criminal organizations like Tren de Aragua or MS13 among immigrants. Moreover, some proponents of the executive order are suspicious of people entering high-security career fields when their parents are government employees or were primarily raised abroad. Since birthright citizenship does not consider the status of the parents, critics argue that there should be higher scrutiny to maintain the best interests of the United States to protect itself against foreign agents who might take advantage of the unconditional citizenship.
Encourages Illegal Immigration
Maintaining broad birthright citizenship is said to encourage the birth tourism industry and chain migration, which critics claim will increase the number of undocumented immigrants straining public resources. Birth tourism, or an industry that encourages pregnant people to go to foreign countries so their children attain citizenship, operates in a variety of countries. Birth tourism has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic, and organizers within the industry, such as a California woman that brought women from China to give birth, are currently facing prosecution. A second force is chain migration, a phenomenon in which immigrants who reside in the U.S. sponsor family members to come to the U.S. Since chain migration comprises the largest source of legal immigration in the United States, birthright citizenship is a mechanism for more immigrants to come into the country. Roughly 21 percent of these sponsored immigrants are above the age of 50, which critics argue is not conducive to the economic success of the U.S.
Drains Public Resources
Maintaining birthright citizenship can impose burdens on American taxpayers to cover medical, welfare, or educational expenses for mixed-status families. In 2023, all emergency services for noncitizen immigrants amounted to $3.8 billion; however, this number accounts for 0.4 percent of all Medicaid spending in that fiscal year. Additionally, since many illegal immigrants come from rural or working class backgrounds, they are twice as likely to receive welfare benefits than native-born families. Moreover, since K-12 education is guaranteed to undocumented children, an estimated $68.1 billion was spent on them in 2019 alone. These three examples, critics claim, is a small portion of the fiscal burden placed on American taxpayers to cover illegal immigrants’ expenses.
Necessity of Broad Executive Orders
Three federal judges blocked EO-14160, but the subsequent Trump v. CASA Supreme Court case limited the authority of states to block nationwide laws. This case began to prevent states from not following EO-14160, and resulted in the Supreme Court limiting state court’s power to go against executive orders. Therefore, the executive branch carries more authority than ever before when responding to national issues. Some advocates are pleased with this transfer of power to the executive branch, as they remain concerned that judicial action takes too long to effectively process immigration cases. As of June 2025, 3,461,637 immigration cases are currently backlogged as they wait to be heard. Finally, since states are developing their own rules on immigration, proponents of the executive order argue that a broad ban is best to create a single rule and discourage families from moving to more immigrant-friendly states.
What Are the Future Implications?
Despite the Supreme Court’s June ruling limiting the use of nationwide injunctions, courts across the country are still expected to block President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. This is due to an exception outlined in the Court’s CASA decision: states may still enact nationwide injunctions if it is the only way to offer full relief. Since the ruling, four courts have already blocked Trump’s order — either by invoking this exception or through class action suits—and more are likely to follow. The administration has not yet appealed any of these rulings. For now, Trump’s efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
A clear trend is emerging toward the use of class action lawsuits to secure relief across state lines. Class action suits allow one or more plaintiffs to bring a case on behalf of a broader group with similar claims. The injunctions previously granted by district judges likely only provide relief from Trump’s executive order to the individuals, organizations, and 22 states who were part of those cases against the government. However, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that plaintiffs could use class actions to block potentially unlawful federal policies more broadly. Professor Brian Wolfman, director of the Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic at Georgetown University, calls class action suits the “next best avenue” to achieve the kind of sweeping protections once provided by universal injunctions. In response, immigrant rights groups — including CASA — have filed class action suits seeking to certify all U.S.-born children of immigrants as a protected class, aiming to secure protections that mirror nationwide injunctions despite the Court’s new restrictions. Legal experts caution, however, that class action lawsuits face higher procedural hurdles, including proving numerosity, commonality, and typicality among members.
The impact of this judicial shift extends well beyond birthright citizenship and immigration. The CASA case will create new complications for plaintiffs seeking broad relief against government policies past the immigration sphere, such as in civil rights and environmental law. While class actions remain a viable tool, such lawsuits require significant resources, and recent Supreme Court decisions have tightened the requirements for class certification. Cary Coglianese, a professor of law and political science at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, warns that this decision — combined with other recent rulings — raises important questions about the judiciary’s ability to act as an effective check on unlawful executive power.
On the topic of birthright citizenship specifically, significant legal uncertainty remains. The ruling could result in policies being enforced in some jurisdictions but blocked in others, creating a patchwork of legal outcomes nationwide. The Trump administration has not detailed how it would enforce the birthright citizenship order, and it is unclear how plaintiffs protected by limited injunctions would prove their exemption to government officials. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of the order, though most legal experts view it as unconstitutional. If the Court were to find it unlawful after a period of enforcement, it is unclear what would happen to individuals denied citizenship during that time — likely, the answer would come on a case-by-case basis.
If the executive order is enforced, the United States could face a fractured system in which a baby born to undocumented parents in California or Maryland might still receive a U.S. birth certificate and be recognized as a citizen due to ongoing litigation, while a baby born the same day in Texas or Florida might not — depending on how lower federal courts handle existing and future lawsuits.
Conclusion
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision limiting nationwide injunctions, the legal battle over birthright citizenship remains unresolved but far from dormant. Courts have continued to block the enforcement of President Trump’s executive order using a key exception that permits broader relief when necessary to fully protect plaintiffs’ rights.
At the same time, immigrant rights groups have pivoted toward class action lawsuits — now the primary legal strategy for securing protections across state lines. While these suits offer a path to broader relief, they come with heightened procedural demands and face narrowing standards set by recent court rulings. The implications stretch beyond immigration, as future civil rights plaintiffs may increasingly rely on class actions to challenge federal policies.
Meanwhile, the administration has yet to appeal the current injunctions, leaving the order in legal limbo. With no final ruling on the order’s constitutionality, uncertainty remains surrounding enforcement, legal protections, and the risk of a fractured system where citizenship rights vary by jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA signals a shift in the balance between judicial authority and executive power — raising critical questions about the courts’ ability to safeguard constitutional rights in the years ahead.
FAQ
Q: Do other countries, or citizens of other countries, have similar concerns?
A: Yes, an example is the UK, which got rid of birthright citizenship in the 1980s, due to concerns about people entering the country with the intention of giving birth.
Q: What is the key exception that courts have used to block the enforcement of this executive order?
A: This exception has to do with nationwide injunctions and injunctive relief, which mean that the extent of how “universal” the ruling is can vary, based on the case.
Q: Why do differences in U.S. states’ involvement matter?
A: This executive order addresses the entire country, but due to the power of state governments in attempting to litigate against the matter, the situation in each state at a given time could be different. This has the potential to affect travel and issues of citizenship both on a nationwide scale, but also within and between states.