A federal court in Seattle is scheduled to commence hearings on Thursday regarding a multi-state legal challenge aimed at halting President Donald Trump’s executive directive that seeks to abolish the constitutional assurance of birthright citizenship, which applies regardless of parental immigration status.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour has organized this session to deliberate on the appeal from states including Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington. This lawsuit is among five different legal actions being pursued by 22 states in addition to several immigrant advocacy groups nationwide. The petitions include personal accounts from state attorneys general who themselves were born citizens, as well as testimonies from expectant mothers who are anxious about the citizenship status of their newborns.
The executive order, which was signed by Trump on his Inauguration Day, is projected to come into effect on February 19. Advocates argue that it could affect several hundred thousand individuals born within U.S. borders. According to the lawsuit filed in Seattle, in 2022, there were approximately 255,000 births of U.S. citizen children to mothers who were living in the country without legal status, alongside about 153,000 births where both parents were undocumented.
The United States is among roughly 30 countries that enforce birthright citizenship, a principle known as jus soli or the “right of the soil,” primarily found in the Americas, including nations like Canada and Mexico.
The legal claims posit that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship for all individuals born or naturalized in the country, a principle that states have consistently upheld for over a century. Ratified in 1868 following the Civil War, the amendment articulates 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.”
Trump’s directive contends that children born to noncitizens are not subjected to U.S. jurisdiction, thus instructing federal agencies to deny citizenship to those whose parents do not have citizenship.
A pivotal legal case around birthright citizenship took place in 1898, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, affirming his status as a U.S. citizen due to his birthright. Upon returning from a trip abroad, he faced challenges in reentry, as federal authorities contended he was not considered a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Nonetheless, some proponents of stricter immigration controls affirm that the Wong Kim Ark ruling specifically pertained to children born to parents who were legal immigrants, creating ambiguity regarding its application to children of undocumented parents.
The controversy surrounding Trump’s executive order has prompted state attorneys general to express their personal associations with the issue of birthright citizenship. For example, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who is a U.S. citizen by birth and the first Chinese American to hold the office, commented on the personal significance of the lawsuit.
“There is no legitimate legal debate on this question. However, the fact that Trump is profoundly incorrect won’t prevent him from causing significant harm to American families like mine,” Tong stated this week.
Among the various lawsuits contesting the executive order is the case of a pregnant woman, referred to as “Carmen.” She has resided in the United States for over 15 years and is currently pursuing a visa application that may lead to permanent residency, but she does not possess civic status.
“Removing the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship from children is a severe damage,” the lawsuit asserts. “It deprives them of the complete inclusion in U.S. society to which they rightfully belong.”
