In a landmark move that has reignited the national debate on immigration and constitutional law, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 20, 2025, seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents.
The order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” has already faced legal pushback, with 22 states filing lawsuits to challenge its constitutionality.
The principle of birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 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 amendment, ratified in 1868, was primarily aimed at ensuring citizenship for formerly enslaved individuals but has since been interpreted to apply broadly to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Legal Challenges and Judicial Response
On January 23, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle issued a temporary injunction blocking the executive order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”
Legal experts argue that altering birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment rather than an executive order or legislative action. Constitutional scholars note that the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) firmly established the right of citizenship by birth.
Opponents of the order assert that it undermines the core principles of the 14th Amendment and sets a dangerous precedent for executive overreach. In their legal filings, the coalition of 22 states argues that “the executive branch cannot unilaterally reinterpret constitutional provisions that have stood for over 150 years.”
Challenges in Amending the Constitution
Changing the U.S. Constitution is an arduous process, requiring either a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures.
Following this, any proposed amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Given the current political landscape, where Congress remains deeply divided, achieving the necessary consensus to amend the 14th Amendment seems highly improbable.
Legal experts contend that the executive order is likely a political maneuver aimed at energizing the president’s base ahead of the 2026 midterm elections rather than a serious attempt at constitutional reform. “
Any attempt to change birthright citizenship through executive action is bound to face immediate and insurmountable legal challenges,” said constitutional law professor Michael Stein from Georgetown University.
Broader Constitutional Implications
More Read
The birthright citizenship controversy is not occurring in isolation. Recently, a Republican lawmaker proposed a constitutional amendment to allow President Trump to run for a third term, circumventing the two-term limit established by the 22nd Amendment. This proposal has sparked widespread debate about the durability of constitutional safeguards and the potential for long-term political ramifications.
The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951 following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four-term presidency, limits a president to two terms in office. The proposal to amend it in favour of Trump highlights the increasing willingness of some factions to challenge long-standing constitutional norms.
Political analysts suggest that both efforts—ending birthright citizenship and extending presidential term limits—are indicative of a broader push to reshape constitutional interpretations to align with contemporary political agendas.
“The Constitution was designed to be a living document, but it is also built with checks and balances to prevent hasty alterations,” said historian Dr. Evelyn Parker of Columbia University. “Efforts to dismantle or alter key amendments without broad national consensus are unlikely to succeed.”
Public and Political Reactions
The executive order has drawn sharp criticism from civil rights groups, immigration advocates, and legal experts.
“This order is a direct attack on the fundamental values of equality and inclusion that define America,” said a spokesperson from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Meanwhile, supporters of the order argue that it is necessary to curb what they term “birth tourism” and unauthorized immigration.
The broader public response has been mixed, with polls indicating that a significant portion of the electorate supports tighter immigration controls, but many remain wary of undermining constitutional guarantees.
Looking Ahead
As the legal battles over birthright citizenship continue to unfold, they are likely to reach the Supreme Court, where the ideological balance of the justices could play a decisive role. Meanwhile, the proposal to extend presidential term limits faces steep political opposition and procedural hurdles.
Ultimately, the efforts to challenge foundational aspects of the U.S. Constitution highlight the ongoing tensions between evolving political priorities and the enduring framework of American democracy. The coming months will determine whether these challenges are merely rhetorical or if they pose a genuine threat to constitutional stability.
