Upon taking the oval office last year, Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order 14160, bringing into question who can be a United States citizen and who can’t.
The order mainly targets children born to parents who are in the U.S. temporarily, unlawfully or lacking permanent resident status. If approved, all babies born after February 20 of 2025 under these terms would be denied U.S. citizenship.
The argument centers on the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says 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.”
The Trump Administration argues that undocumented and temporary immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction and that the Fourteenth Amendment was aimed at the children of former slaves. But, what was the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment when it was ratified in 1868?
All federal courts disagreed with this decision and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the current administration on behalf of three families whose children will be affected if this order comes into effect.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Trump v. Barbara on April 1.
Barbara is the pseudonym of the lead plaintiff. She is a Honduran citizen that applied for asylum and was expected to give birth in October of 2025.
The case argued that the executive order is not consistent with legal precedent of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which determined that any person born on U.S. soil is a citizen, regardless of the legal status of their parents, as long as they are not the child of foreign diplomats or an invading enemy in times of conflict.
Since then the practice of stare decisis,“to stand by things decided,” has applied in the case of Wong Kim Ark.
Why challenge how we interpret this law now?
John Sauer, the Solicitor General defending the Trump Administration in this case claims that birth tourism is a modern issue that justifies the executive order.
The estimated number of births attributed to this practice, however, is approximately at its highest, around 33,000 births a year in the United States, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.
When around 3.5 million babies are born each year in the United States, 33,000 shows that this executive order is making big leaps to address less than 1% of births in the United States.
To this argument Chief Justice John G. Roberts responded “It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” which demonstrates how the Supreme Court might not be willing to adapt the Constitution to current policy concerns.
Although most justices appeared skeptical in the hearing, an official decision will be made by July.
The result of this class action lawsuit not only has the ability to affect citizenship rights, but also to open a window to allow the reinterpretation of constitutional text and change the very premise of American civilization.
Forum editor Ninette Portero contributed to this column.
