U.S. Immigration Reforms: From the 14th Amendment to Trump’s Executive Orders

Trump’s executive order to limit birthright citizenship faces Supreme Court scrutiny. Learn about the legal battle, 14th Amendment, and global implications.

Former President Donald Trump’s move to limit birthright citizenship in the U.S. is now at the center of a major constitutional battle. The controversial executive order seeks to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident—a direct challenge to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Legal experts warn that this dramatic shift in policy could render countless children stateless, swell the unauthorized population, and create enormous bureaucratic challenges.

U.S. Immigration Reforms: From the 14th Amendment to Trump’s Executive Orders

Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Trump’s Executive Order

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on May 15 in what is shaping up to be a landmark case. The hearing, set to begin at 2 p.m. Eastern Time, will examine whether lower federal courts were right to halt enforcement of Trump’s order while legal proceedings continue. Judges had previously blocked the policy, labeling it unconstitutional and stating it must not be implemented until full judicial review is complete.

Understanding the 14th Amendment

Adopted in 1868, the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to all individuals born or naturalized in the United States. It was a pivotal reform following the Civil War, meant to ensure equality and citizenship for formerly enslaved individuals. The most critical clause reads: “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.”

Wong Kim Ark Case

A major legal precedent dates back to 1898, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark, a man born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents. After being denied reentry into the U.S. following a trip to China, the Court affirmed in a 6–2 decision that his birth on U.S. soil made him a citizen—regardless of his parents’ nationality or immigration status. This ruling has long served as the foundation for birthright citizenship in the U.S.

Trump Administration’s Legal Argument

The Trump administration contends that the Wong Kim Ark decision only applies to children of parents who are lawful, permanent residents—not those in the country on temporary visas or without legal status. Trump’s executive order asserts that birthright citizenship should be reserved for children born to individuals who are under “full legal jurisdiction” of the United States. This distinction would exclude children born to undocumented immigrants or people in the U.S. on short-term stays.

Millions Could Be Affected

Estimates suggest that between 11 to 14 million undocumented immigrants currently reside in the U.S. Their U.S.-born children—who are currently recognized as citizens—would no longer automatically qualify under Trump’s policy. Trump has also voiced strong opposition to “birth tourism,” where foreign nationals travel to the U.S. specifically to give birth and secure citizenship for their children.

the 14th amendment was written to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people, who were born in the united states but lacked legal personhood. the idea that the logic of the amendment is at all ambiguous is ridiculous.
— b-boy bouiebaisse (@jbouie) October 30, 2018

Legal Backlash and Constitutional Disputes

The executive order has sparked an immediate wave of legal action. Twenty-two Democratic attorneys general and multiple immigration advocacy groups have filed lawsuits, claiming the order blatantly violates the 14th Amendment. Critics argue that citizenship rights enshrined in the Constitution cannot be altered by executive action alone.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, one of the leading voices in the legal fight, emphasized the historical purpose of the amendment. He told Reuters, “The 14th Amendment was designed after the Civil War to protect equal rights. It was never meant to be subject to the whims of any one president.”

What is birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship is a legal principle that guarantees automatic citizenship to individuals born within a country’s territory, regardless of their parents’ nationality or immigration status. In the United States, this right is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which declares 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 means that any child born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, even if the child’s parents are undocumented immigrants, foreign nationals, or only visiting temporarily. This system, known as jus soli (Latin for “right of the soil”), was originally established in 1868 to ensure full citizenship rights for formerly enslaved people after the Civil War.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the doctrine of birthright citizenship, most notably in the landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which confirmed that a child born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents is a U.S. citizen. Despite this constitutional foundation, the concept has become a contentious issue in modern political debates.

Critics argue that birthright citizenship encourages practices like “birth tourism” or “anchor babies,” where non-citizens allegedly exploit the law to secure citizenship for their children. On the other hand, defenders of birthright citizenship view it as a fundamental protection of equal rights, helping prevent statelessness and ensuring that all children born in the country are treated equally under the law.

The controversy intensified during the presidency of Donald Trump, who proposed ending birthright citizenship through an executive order. This move ignited significant legal and constitutional debates, as most constitutional scholars argue that such a drastic change cannot be made through executive action alone and would require a formal amendment to the 14th Amendment. The Trump administration’s proposal was widely seen as a direct challenge to the 14th Amendment, which has long guaranteed citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.

As such, birthright citizenship remains both a deeply rooted legal doctrine and a flashpoint in the broader debate over U.S. immigration policy. Efforts to reinterpret the 14th Amendment continue to raise fundamental questions about national identity, equal rights, and the limits of presidential power.

Ask ChatGPT

Historical context and 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on July 9, 1868, was a transformative moment in American legal history, especially in the wake of the Civil War. It was enacted during the Reconstruction Era to ensure full citizenship and equal protection under the law for formerly enslaved African Americans who had been denied these rights before the abolition of slavery.

The most pivotal part of the amendment is the Citizenship Clause, 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 clause was designed to overturn the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that African Americans could not be considered citizens. By establishing birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment laid a legal foundation for inclusion and equality, ensuring that citizenship could not be denied based on race, ethnicity, or parentage.

Over time, the 14th Amendment became central to many landmark civil rights cases and was frequently cited in court decisions that expanded constitutional protections. It also became the legal cornerstone for debates about immigration and citizenship, especially with respect to children born to immigrant parents on U.S. soil. In

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court affirmed that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrant parents was a citizen under the 14th Amendment, reinforcing the principle of jus soli, or “right of the soil.” While the amendment was originally focused on racial justice and civil rights, its implications have extended into modern immigration debates, particularly as some political leaders have proposed narrowing or repealing birthright citizenship. Despite challenges, the 14th Amendment remains a powerful symbol of American constitutional values and a key safeguard against discrimination and exclusion.

Current Controversy and Supreme Court Hearing

In May and June 2025, the Supreme Court has been at the center of a heated legal and political storm over birthright citizenship. The Court heard oral arguments on May 15 in Trump v. CASA, a consolidated case involving three suits challenging President Trump’s January 20, 2025 executive order (EO 14160), which proposed denying citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident . The Court’s focus, however, was on whether lower courts have the authority to issue universal (nationwide) injunctions, not the constitutionality of the order itself.

On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled 6–3 that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority” granted by Congress, granting the Trump administration a partial stay of the injunctions but not deciding on the EO’s legality. Justice Barrett wrote the majority opinion, narrowing injunctions to only the plaintiffs involved, while Justice Sotomayor (joined by Kagan and Jackson) strongly dissented, warning this undermines judicial checks and “gives way” to unchecked executive power .

The decision triggered significant uncertainty: the order is temporarily blocked for 30 days, with lower courts now determining the scope of injunctions and additional legal challenges proceeding—including an ACLU-led class-action and state-led suits targeting the constitutionality of the EO . Advocates warn that if injunctions are limited, the policy could be enforced in some states but not others, jeopardizing citizenship for up to 150,000 U.S.-born children annually and raising fears of statelessness and a fragmented legal landscape.

Why is birthright citizenship a major issue in U.S.?

Birthright citizenship has become a major issue in U.S. politics—and a topic of global debate—because it lies at the intersection of immigration, national identity, constitutional law, and demographic change. In the United States, the 14th Amendment guarantees automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. This interpretation of the 14th Amendment has long served as a safeguard for equal treatment under the law.

However, with growing concerns over undocumented immigration, border security, and birth tourism, some political leaders—most notably former President Donald Trump—have pushed to reinterpret or eliminate this long-standing right. Critics of these efforts argue that undermining the 14th Amendment would erode a foundational pillar of American civil rights and could set a dangerous precedent for selective citizenship policies.

They argue that birthright citizenship acts as a magnet, encouraging unauthorized immigrants to enter the country and have children who automatically gain U.S. citizenship, sometimes referred to controversially as “anchor babies.” This perspective has intensified calls to amend or limit the practice through executive actions or constitutional reinterpretation.

On the other hand, many legal scholars, civil rights groups, and global human rights organizations defend birthright citizenship as a core democratic value that ensures equal treatment, prevents statelessness, and guards against discrimination based on race, nationality, or heritage. Internationally, a growing number of countries—especially in Europe and parts of Asia—have already rolled back or restricted jus soli rights in response to rising nationalism and immigration control efforts.

This global shift adds pressure on the U.S. to consider similar changes, despite its unique constitutional protections. As a result, the debate over birthright citizenship is no longer just a legal matter—it reflects deep divides over who belongs in a nation, who gets to be a citizen, and what it means to be American in a rapidly changing world.

The push to limit birthright citizenship in the United States has reignited one of the most sensitive and far-reaching debates in American constitutional law. At the heart of the issue is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment—a cornerstone of post-Civil War civil rights protections. The Trump administration’s challenge raises questions about whether the 14th Amendment should still be applied in its broad, original form or reinterpreted in light of modern immigration concerns.

While the Trump administration argues for a narrower definition of citizenship tied to parental legal status, opponents warn of the devastating consequences for children born in the U.S., including statelessness and systemic inequality. Supporters of the current legal framework emphasize that the 14th Amendment was specifically designed to ensure equal citizenship for all born on American soil, regardless of ancestry. With the Supreme Court now hearing arguments, the outcome could redefine American identity and immigration policy for generations to come. As the legal battle unfolds, one thing is certain: the future of birthright citizenship hangs in the balance.