On January 20, 2025, hours after being sworn in for his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14,160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” attempting to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders (Exec. Order No. 14,160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449, January 29, 2025). The order has never taken effect. Federal courts across the country immediately issued preliminary injunctions blocking its implementation, with judges uniformly finding that the executive order contradicts the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment and over 125 years of Supreme Court precedent. The case is now before the Supreme Court as Trump v. Barbara, with a ruling expected by late June or early July 2026.

This executive order represents perhaps the most constitutionally audacious action of the second Trump administration — an attempt by a president to unilaterally redefine who is an American citizen, a power the Constitution reserves exclusively to the Constitution itself and to Congress.

Legal and Constitutional Background

The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 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.” Ratified in 1868, this language was a direct response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that Black people could not be citizens. The Citizenship Clause was designed to establish a constitutional guarantee of citizenship that no court, no legislature, and no president could override.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): The Supreme Court held that a child born in the United States to Chinese nationals who were legal residents — but ineligible for citizenship under the Chinese Exclusion Act — was a citizen by birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court’s interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was broad: it excludes only children of foreign diplomats, enemy forces in hostile occupation, and children born on foreign public vessels. All other persons born on U.S. soil are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth.

The Executive Order’s Theory: Trump’s order reinterprets “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude children whose mothers are undocumented or in the country on temporary visas and whose fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. This interpretation has been “resoundingly rejected” by the Supreme Court and “no court in the country has ever endorsed” it (U.S. District Court, D. Md., Memorandum Opinion, CASA v. Trump, 2025).

Constitutional Amendment Requirement: Changing who qualifies for birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment — passage by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, followed by ratification by 38 states. An executive order cannot amend the Constitution (Council on Foreign Relations, 2026).

Timeline of Key Actions

• 1868: Fourteenth Amendment ratified, establishing birthright citizenship.
• 1898: Supreme Court decides United States v. Wong Kim Ark, confirming birthright citizenship applies to children of non-citizen parents born on U.S. soil.
• January 20, 2025: President Trump signs Executive Order 14,160, directing federal agencies to deny citizenship documentation (birth certificates, passports, Social Security numbers) to children born after February 19, 2025, whose mothers are undocumented or on temporary visas and whose fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents (EO 14,160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449).
• January 21, 2025: Legal challenges filed immediately. CASA, Inc. and Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, along with five pregnant women without permanent legal status, file suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (CASA v. Trump, D. Md., Civ. No. DLB-25-201).
• Late January 2025: Multiple federal district courts issue preliminary injunctions blocking the order. Judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington find the order clearly violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
• February 2025: U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman (D. Md.) grants preliminary injunction, finding “a very strong likelihood of success on the merits” and that the order “interprets the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in a manner that the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected” (CASA v. Trump, Memorandum Opinion, 2025).
• March 2025: Trump administration asks the Supreme Court to intervene — not on the merits, but to prohibit lower courts from issuing “universal injunctions” blocking enforcement of the order nationwide (SCOTUSblog, March 2026).
• June 2025: Supreme Court grants the administration’s request, ruling in Trump v. CASA that district courts generally lack authority to issue universal injunctions. The Court narrows the existing injunctions to apply only to the specific individuals and organizations who sued — but does not address the merits of the birthright citizenship order (Council on Foreign Relations, 2026; SCOTUSblog, March 2026).
• July 10, 2025: U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante issues a new preliminary injunction in Barbara v. Trump on behalf of a certified nationwide class of babies born after February 20, 2025, who would be denied citizenship by the order. He concludes “that the Executive Order likely ‘contradicts the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the century-old untouched precedent that interprets it'” (SCOTUSblog, March 2026).
• Fall 2025: Appeals court upholds block on the executive order (ACLU of New Hampshire, April 2026).
• April 1, 2026: Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara. The ACLU, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, and Democracy Defenders Fund represent the challengers (ACLU of New Hampshire, April 2026).
• Expected late June/early July 2026: Supreme Court decision expected (ACLU of New Hampshire, April 2026; Council on Foreign Relations, 2026).

Key Actors

• donald-trump-profile — Issued the executive order on his first day in office. The order reflects a longstanding campaign promise to end birthright citizenship.
• stephen-miller-profile — Senior advisor and architect of the administration’s immigration policies, including the birthright citizenship order. Miller has advocated for restricting birthright citizenship since at least 2015.
• D. John Sauer — Solicitor General. Argued the government’s case before the Supreme Court, requesting the order be applied “proactively” rather than retroactively (The Verge, April 2026).
• ACLU — Lead counsel challenging the executive order through Trump v. Barbara, representing a nationwide class of affected children.
• Judge Deborah Boardman (D. Md.) — Issued the initial preliminary injunction in CASA v. Trump, finding the order clearly unconstitutional.
• Judge Joseph Laplante (D.N.H.) — Certified a nationwide class and issued the injunction that became the basis for Trump v. Barbara at the Supreme Court.

Legal Challenges

CASA, Inc. v. Trump (D. Md., Civ. No. DLB-25-201): The initial lawsuit. Judge Boardman found “a very strong likelihood of success on the merits,” that “the Executive Order interprets the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in a manner that the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected,” and that the order conflicts with Wong Kim Ark. Preliminary injunction granted (Memorandum Opinion, 2025).

Trump v. CASA (Supreme Court, June 2025): The administration challenged the lower courts’ authority to issue universal injunctions, not the merits of the birthright citizenship order. The Supreme Court ruled that district courts generally cannot issue universal injunctions, narrowing the existing injunctions to named parties only. This procedural ruling did not address whether the executive order violates the Constitution.

Barbara v. Trump / Trump v. Barbara (D.N.H. → Supreme Court): After the universal injunction ruling, the ACLU obtained class certification for all babies born after February 20, 2025, who would be denied citizenship. Judge Laplante issued a class-wide injunction. The case proceeded to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on April 1, 2026. A decision is expected by late June or early July 2026.

Uniform Judicial Rejection: No court in the country has endorsed the executive order’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Every judge to consider the merits — across multiple districts — has found the order likely unconstitutional.

Impact Assessment

Scope of Affected Individuals: If implemented, the order would deny birthright citizenship to hundreds of thousands of children born annually in the United States. The order would create a new class of stateless persons — children born on U.S. soil who are citizens of no country (Council on Foreign Relations, 2026).

Implementation Chaos: The order would require federal agencies to determine, at the time of birth, the immigration status of both parents before issuing birth certificates, Social Security numbers, or other citizenship documentation. This would create massive administrative burdens on hospitals, vital records offices, and federal agencies.

Retroactivity Questions: During oral arguments, the government asked the Supreme Court to apply the order “proactively” rather than retroactively. However, any implementation date raises questions about children born between February 19, 2025 (the order’s original effective date) and whenever the Court might rule — potentially calling the citizenship of millions of children into question (The Verge, April 2026).

Constitutional Precedent: If the Supreme Court were to uphold the executive order, it would establish the principle that a president can unilaterally reinterpret constitutional text — a power with no limiting principle. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was specifically designed to be beyond the reach of presidential or legislative revision, absent a new constitutional amendment.

Deterrent Effect: Even without implementation, the executive order has created fear and uncertainty among immigrant communities. Pregnant women in mixed-status families face anxiety about their children’s citizenship status.

State-Level Responses

• Multiple state attorneys general filed or joined lawsuits challenging the executive order.
• The initial injunctions in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington reflected nationwide opposition from state-level legal officers.
• No state has enacted legislation supporting or implementing the executive order’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

For Trump Supporters: Questions Worth Considering

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified to ensure that the government could never again deny citizenship to people born on American soil. If a president can redefine constitutional text by executive order — bypassing the amendment process that requires two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of the states — what stops a future president from reinterpreting the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, or any other constitutional protection you rely on? The Constitution’s strength lies in the fact that its guarantees cannot be changed by any one person, no matter how powerful.

Factual correction requests: If you believe information in this profile is incorrect, please contact factcheck@patriot.university with your name (optional), the specific claim, and any supporting documentation. We review all submissions and correct verified errors promptly.

Sources

1. Executive Order 14,160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” 90 Fed. Reg. 8449, January 29, 2025.
2. U.S. District Court, D. Md., CASA, Inc. v. Trump, Memorandum Opinion, Civ. No. DLB-25-201, 2025. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.65.0_1.pdf
3. SCOTUSblog, “The key arguments in the birthright citizenship case,” March 2026. https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/the-key-arguments-in-the-birthright-citizenship-case/
4. The Verge, “Trump’s birthright citizenship ban may fail — but the administration already got too far,” April 2026. https://www.theverge.com/policy/905649/trump-supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-scotus-arguments
5. ACLU of New Hampshire, “Supreme Court Arguments Wrap in Landmark Challenge to Trump Birthright Citizenship Executive Order,” April 2026. https://www.aclu-nh.org/press-releases/supreme-court-arguments-wrap-in-landmark-challenge-to-trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order/
6. Council on Foreign Relations, “What Is Birthright Citizenship and Could the Supreme Court End It?” 2026. https://www.cfr.org/articles/what-birthright-citizenship-and-could-supreme-court-end-it
7. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
8. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).
9. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022).
10. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, cl. 1.