Rights groups filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday to block President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, setting up another high-stakes legal battle over the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.
The complaint was submitted to a federal court in New Hampshire by a coalition of legal advocacy organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Legal Defense Fund, the Asian Law Caucus, and the Democracy Defenders Fund. The filing comes shortly after Trump signed two executive orders targeting automatic citizenship for children born on American soil.
One directive instructs federal agencies to expand the narrow historical exceptions under the Fourteenth Amendment, which traditionally applied only to foreign diplomats and foreign combatants. Under the new policy, federal authorities are instructed to withhold citizenship documentation from children of diplomatic staff, individuals suspected of ties to foreign terrorist organizations, and parents involved in commercial birth tourism arrangements. The second order directs the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security to aggressively curb international travel arranged specifically for giving birth in the United States.
Civil rights lawyers maintain that the administration is openly ignoring binding judicial precedent. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a 6-3 decision invalidating an earlier attempt by the administration to end birthright citizenship through executive action.
“The Supreme Court could not have been more clear: President Trump’s attempt to redefine who is an American citizen through executive action was unconstitutional,” said Amia Trigg, deputy director of litigation at the Legal Defense Fund. She added that advocacy groups would not allow the executive branch to disregard the judiciary’s authority in its campaign against American-born children.
Writing for the majority in June, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected the White House’s argument that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended solely for the children of formerly enslaved individuals after the Civil War. Roberts noted there was “scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view,” writing that the framers of the amendment extended its guarantee to “every free-born person in this land.”
Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy and key architect of the administration’s hardline immigration agenda, previously promised to challenge the June ruling. However, administration lawyers allowed a late-July deadline to pass without asking the Supreme Court to rehear the case. Legal observers view the latest executive orders as a direct test of the high court’s resolve, though it remains uncertain whether the justices will entertain the new legal maneuvers.
While six justices rejected the administration’s earlier claims, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued against finding the executive directive unconstitutional. That dissenting stance has kept hopes alive among administration supporters who wish to see the issue return to the top court.
The renewed legal battle coincides with broader Republican messaging ahead of the upcoming November midterm elections, where conservative lawmakers are seeking to make birthright citizenship a focal point for their voting base. Public polling, however, continues to indicate consistent support for the practice among a majority of Americans.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, characterized the administration’s strategy as a frantic attempt to find a legal loophole that will stand up in court. “Immigrant communities know that our rights are on the line, especially when the government uses us as scapegoats,” Kohli said. “The Trump administration already lost once, and it will lose again.”
