Oregon Fights Trump’s Order Denying Citizenship to U.S.-Born Children of Non-Green Card Holders

On his first day back at the White House, January 20, Trump signed his first Executive Order (EO), which directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children without at least one parent who is a green card holder.

Trump’s Executive Order Sparks Constitutional Debate

A coalition of 22 attorneys general, including Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, together with immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants, have challenged the EO in the US Supreme Court.

They argue that over 150,000 babies born to green card holders- American citizens or lawful permanent residents- annually would be denied citizenship if Trump’s EO takes effect.

Rayfield confirmed that every court to have considered the policy agrees that the President’s attempt to end birthright citizenship is patently unconstitutional.

He said, “The President cannot rewrite the Constitution and contradict the Supreme Court’s own holdings with the stroke of a pen.”

An infamous 1857 Supreme Court decision helped fuel the Civil War, Dred Scott v. Sandford, denying citizenship to enslaved and free Black people was overridden by the 14th Amendment, which states, in its citizenship clause, 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.”

For 127 years, the 1898 Supreme Court United States v. Wong Kim Ark ruling has been

interpreted as a guarantee that children born in the US to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship.

The Trump administration says the ruling only applies to children whose parents had a “permanent domicile and residence in the US.” They say the amendment language does not extend to immigrants in the country illegally or immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, for example, university students or those on work visas.

Supreme Court Hears Challenges to Birthright Citizenship Policy

On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard arguments as Trump seeks a significant shift in the general understanding of the US Constitution.

The court’s conservative justices, three of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term as president, but none indicated that they endorsed Trump’s order. Three judges found that Trump’s order likely violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment citizenship language.

The administration also argued that federal judges lack the authority to issue universal injunctions. They asked the justices to rule that way and enforce Trump’s directive without weighing its legal merits.

They also want to narrow the injunctions to apply only to the individual plaintiffs and the 22 states, which could allow the EO to take effect in the 28 states that did not sue, other than to any plaintiffs living in those states.

Without a universal injunction blocking the EO, the constitutionality issue could take years to be resolved. It is still uncertain whether the court will order further briefing, further delaying the resolution of the case.

Rayfield said, “We were proud to stand together—as a coalition of Attorneys General—to defend birthright citizenship and the rule of law at the U.S. Supreme Court today.”