THE AMERICA ONE NEWS
Feb 24, 2025  |  
0
 | Remer,MN
Sponsor:  QWIKET AI 
Sponsor:  QWIKET AI 
Sponsor:  QWIKET AI: Interactive Sports Knowledge.
Sponsor:  QWIKET AI: Interactive Sports Knowledge and Reasoning Support.
back  
topic
The Washington Times Newsroom


NextImg:Trump faces multiple defeats in fight against birthright citizenship

President Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to deny automatic birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants has faced significant legal setbacks.

The policy has been challenged in at least 10 court cases, with Mr. Trump losing all four preliminary rulings that have been decided so far. Federal judges have been notably decisive in their opposition, with Judge John C. Coughenour calling the order “blatantly unconstitutional” and noting his four decades of experience had never presented such a clear-cut case.

The legal debate centers on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s jurisdiction clause, which grants citizenship to those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. While most legal scholars oppose Mr. Trump’s interpretation, some experts see potential merit in his position. Law professors Randy Barnett and Ilan Wurman argue that the Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly ruled on cases involving temporary visitors or illegal immigrants, suggesting the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision only addressed children of legally domiciled parents.



Congressional Republicans and Republican-led states have supported Mr. Trump’s position, arguing that illegal immigrants aren’t under U.S. jurisdiction because they lack allegiance and explicit permission to be part of the country. However, district courts have consistently applied the Wong Kim Ark ruling to children of illegal immigrants, with Judge Deborah L. Boardman emphasizing these children’s constitutional right to citizenship by birth.

The Justice Department is expediting appeals, though one appellate court, the 9th Circuit, has already refused to stay a lower court’s decision. Judge Danielle J. Forrest, while acknowledging the controversy’s importance, emphasized the need for reasoned judgment rather than rushed decisions. The matter appears destined for Supreme Court consideration, though some legal experts, like University of Richmond professor Carl Tobias, suggest the Supreme Court might decline to hear the case given the constitutional clarity.

Read more: Trump on major losing streak on birthright citizenship

This article is written with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence based solely on Washington Times original reporting and wire services. For more information, please read our AI policy or contact Ann Wog, Managing Editor for Digital, at awog@washingtontimes.com

The Washington Times AI Ethics Newsroom Committee can be reached at aispotlight@washingtontimes.com.