Immigration and the Constitution: How Courts Are Shaping the Birthright Citizenship Battle.
The principle of birthright citizenship, enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, guarantees that anyone born on American soil is granted citizenship, irrespective of their parents' immigration status.
This foundational tenet has recently become a focal point of legal and political contention, with the judiciary playing a pivotal role in interpreting and upholding this constitutional right.
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump, upon commencing his second term, issued an executive order aiming to end automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents.
Attorneys general from 22 states swiftly filed lawsuits challenging the executive order, asserting that it contravenes the clear language of the Constitution.
Federal judges across multiple jurisdictions responded by issuing injunctions to halt the enforcement of the order. Notably, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle described the order as "blatantly unconstitutional,".
The legal battle escalated to the appellate courts, where the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently denied the administration's emergency request to lift the nationwide injunction.
The panel underscored the necessity of adhering to established constitutional interpretations and cautioned against precipitous changes to long-standing legal precedents.
The judiciary's stance is deeply rooted in historical precedents. The 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that children born in the U.S. to foreign parents are citizens by virtue of birthright.