Federal Courts Uphold Birthright Citizenship Amid Trump's Challenge

Fri Oct 10 2025 15:15:24 GMT+0300 (Eastern European Summer Time)

In a significant judicial battle, multiple federal courts have rejected President Trump's executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants. This pushback highlights a crucial constitutional debate as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to make a final ruling on the issue.

This summer, numerous federal courts have ruled against President Trump's attempt to terminate automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or on temporary visas. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed previous rulings, emphasizing the constitutional protections afforded by the 14th Amendment. As the Supreme Court gears up to review the matter, the administration's interpretation of citizenship rights faces mounting scrutiny.

Courts Reject Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order

BOSTON (AP) — In a pivotal month this summer, four federal courts consistently ruled against President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending automatic citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States.

The latest verdict came from the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, which unanimously stated the executive order could not be enforced, aligning with earlier decisions from other courts that have blocked the order nationwide.

As the case makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the administration has appealed for judicial review of the ruling concerning birthright citizenship.

Understanding Birthright Citizenship

The principle of birthright citizenship is grounded in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 to provide citizenship to all individuals born or naturalized within the U.S. jurisdiction. This principle is particularly significant for ensuring rights of former slaves and their descendants.

Despite the amendment’s clarity, administration lawyers argue that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” limits citizenship only to children whose parents possess full allegiance to the U.S. Thus, they claim that children of temporary or illegal residents are not entitled to citizenship.

Historical Context and Court Precedents

The 14th Amendment has been subject to interpretation through various Supreme Court rulings. Notably, a landmark 1898 Supreme Court decision established that children born to Chinese immigrants in San Francisco were U.S. citizens. While the Court hasn’t definitively ruled on this matter regarding undocumented immigrants’ children, past interpretations suggest that citizenship should apply universally to all born in the U.S.

Recent Court Decisions

Multiple courts have unanimously blocked Trump’s birthright citizenship order, reinforcing the idea that citizenship cannot be easily stripped away without due legal process. Recent rulings have emphasized the broader implications for states grappling with the financial ramifications of such policies and the inherent challenges in enforcing residency-based citizenship.

White House's Stance

In response to the ruling, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson indicated that the administration disagrees with the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and remains hopeful for a favorable resolution in the Supreme Court. The administration is preparing to enforce new measures requiring proof of parental citizenship or immigration status for crucial services like Social Security numbers and passports.

As the issue heads to the highest court, it echoes broader discussions about immigration, civil rights, and the foundational values enshrined within the U.S. Constitution.