Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship Faces Legal Challenge

By Michael Dorstewitz
Monday, 03 November 2025 12:06 PM EST

One of the first actions President Trump took at the start of his second term was to sign an executive order ending birthright citizenship — the principle that a woman crossing the border into the United States could give birth for one purpose: to grant the child U.S. citizenship.

Birthright citizenship is rooted in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, 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.” On its face, this appears to settle the debate. Birthright citizenship is enshrined in law, making so-called “anchor babies” legitimate American citizens — until one considers the amendment’s original intent.

The Citizenship Clause was part of the Reconstruction Amendments, which followed the Civil War. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, the 14th granted citizenship and equal protection under the law, and the 15th prohibited racial discrimination in voting rights. The clause aimed to overturn the Dred Scott decision, which denied African Americans citizenship and their rights. Its purpose was to rectify past injustices by ensuring former slaves and their descendants were recognized as citizens.

It was never intended to create “anchor babies.” Shortly after Trump’s executive order, U.S. District Courts in Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts ruled the order unconstitutional and unenforceable nationwide. The president appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a partial decision in June, blocking local federal courts from issuing universal injunctions.

The court’s consideration of the core issue — the validity of Trump’s executive order — remains pending. However, a significant development occurred late last month when Iowa and Tennessee attorneys general led 22 other states in petitioning the Supreme Court to address birthright citizenship. These states, largely Republican-led, argue that the Citizenship Clause was misapplied in the 20th century, becoming a lure for illegal border crossings.

The petitioners emphasize that over 9 million foreign nationals have overwhelmed the nation’s infrastructure, stating, “Conferring U.S. citizenship requires a more meaningful connection than mere presence by happenstance or illegality.” They assert that originalist evidence shows the clause was meant to establish parental domicile as the basis for citizenship.

The states of Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts rely on the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where Chinese parents legally residing in the U.S. granted their child citizenship. This differs from “anchor baby” scenarios, as the parents were not illegal immigrants or visa overstayers. The petition also highlights the Citizenship Clause’s original purpose: to address slavery-era injustices by eliminating racial discrimination in citizenship rights.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case and rules in favor of Trump’s administration, it could potentially revoke citizenship for those granted it through birth. This would mark a significant shift, but even a partial reversal could reduce incentives for illegal border crossings. The petitioners argue that such a change would allow the U.S. to reclaim its identity as “a nation of, by, and for true American citizens.”

Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and frequent contributor to Newsmax. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and Second Amendment supporter.