Can President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship withstand ongoing legal challenges

The ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to restrict the authority of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions marks a partial victory for President Trump. This ruling limits the ability of lower courts to block the enforcement of his executive order that seeks to restrict birthright citizenship.

However, the court did not rule on the constitutionality of the order itself, leaving the core legal battle unresolved. The order remains blocked for at least 30 days, allowing time for further legal challenges to proceed.

The executive order’s intent and constitutional controversy

Signed on President Trump’s first day back in office in January 2025, the executive order directs federal agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the United States unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

This move directly challenges the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which guarantees citizenship to nearly all born on U.S. soil. Multiple federal judges have found the order likely unconstitutional and issued nationwide injunctions to prevent its enforcement, citing its conflict with the Constitution’s language.

Did you know?
Birthright citizenship, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment since 1868, has been a cornerstone of U.S. law, with only limited exceptions such as children born to foreign diplomats.

Legal strategies shifting toward class-action lawsuits

Although the Supreme Court limited the scope of nationwide injunctions, it left open the possibility for broader relief through class-action lawsuits. To protect all children affected by the order, civil rights organizations and immigrant advocacy groups have swiftly filed such lawsuits.

These class actions aim to secure “class-protective” injunctions that could block the policy’s enforcement beyond individual plaintiffs, maintaining a robust legal defense against the executive order.

ALSO READ | Can Senate Republicans unite to pass Trump’s sweeping tax and spending bill by July 4?

States’ role and ongoing litigation challenges

Twenty-two states, mostly led by Democratic attorneys general, have joined the legal fight, arguing that the order imposes financial and administrative burdens requiring broad injunctions. However, the Supreme Court left unresolved whether states have standing to seek nationwide relief, a question that lower courts must now address.

This uncertainty adds complexity to the litigation landscape, as states continue to challenge the order while the administration pushes for enforcement in states not party to lawsuits.

The uncertain future for birthright citizenship and affected families

With the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing potential partial enforcement after 30 days, families in some states face uncertainty about their children’s citizenship status. Legal experts predict a surge in litigation, with courts likely to grant preliminary injunctions against the order based on its apparent unconstitutionality.

Meanwhile, immigrant rights advocates vow to continue fighting the order, emphasizing the fundamental constitutional promise of birthright citizenship and the risks of creating a fragmented system of citizenship rights across the country.