President Trump’s executive order seeks to overturn the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause, a cornerstone of American equality established in 1868. This action, challenged in court by multiple states and individuals, is based on a narrow interpretation of the amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause. Legal experts overwhelmingly disagree with this interpretation, citing established precedent and arguing that the order is unconstitutional and would reverse over a century of legal precedent. The case is expected to reach the Supreme Court, with significant implications for racial justice and the future of American citizenship.
Read More
Phoebe Dong received a 41-month prison sentence for her role in the USA Happy Baby scheme, which facilitated birth tourism for over 100 pregnant Chinese women seeking US citizenship for their children. Dong and her husband, Michael Liu (also sentenced to 41 months), were convicted of conspiracy and money laundering, having coached clients on deceiving US customs officials. Despite Dong’s emotional plea citing her personal experiences and hardships, the judge denied her request to serve her sentence after Liu’s. This case highlights the ongoing debate surrounding birthright citizenship in the United States and forms part of a larger crackdown on birth tourism operations.
Read More
Pregnant women nationwide are leading lawsuits against the federal government, challenging President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. These suits, filed in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington, allege the order is unconstitutional, violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which has been upheld for over 150 years. Multiple states and cities have joined the legal fight, arguing that the President lacks the authority to unilaterally revoke this established right. The lawsuits contend that the order would render children stateless and deny them fundamental rights.
Read More
President Trump’s executive order aiming to revoke birthright citizenship for children of non-citizen parents has been deemed “blatantly unconstitutional” by a federal judge. The administration’s arguments, relying on 19th-century laws and misinterpretations of Supreme Court cases concerning Native American citizenship, are widely rejected by legal experts. The order’s fate hinges on whether judges prioritize historical precedent, particularly the 1898 *Wong Kim Ark* decision affirming birthright citizenship, or embrace the administration’s revisionist historical claims. Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision will reveal its stance on the Trump administration’s actions and its interpretation of constitutional history.
Read More
The Trump administration, in legal filings challenging birthright citizenship, argued that the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause requires individuals to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” citing the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which excluded “Indians not taxed.” This interpretation, supported by the Supreme Court’s Elk v. Wilkins decision denying citizenship to Native Americans due to tribal allegiance, contends that the government’s connection to children of undocumented immigrants is weaker than its relationship with tribal members. This position represents a significant shift from the government’s previous stance on Native American citizenship.
Read More
A federal judge in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order blocking President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, deeming it “blatantly unconstitutional.” The order, granted in response to a lawsuit filed by Washington state and other Democratic-led states, halts implementation for 14 days pending further legal proceedings. The judge questioned the legal basis for the executive order, highlighting the potential for significant harm to affected children. The Trump administration argued that the 14th Amendment allows for exclusion of certain children, while the plaintiffs contend the order violates the amendment and will cause substantial financial and logistical burdens on state programs.
Read More
A federal judge in Seattle swiftly blocked President Trump’s attempt to curtail birthright citizenship through an executive order, deeming the action blatantly unconstitutional. This decisive move came after a hearing where the judge, a Reagan appointee, expressed profound disbelief at the Justice Department’s defense of the order.
The judge’s temporary restraining order halts the implementation of the executive order, preventing the denial of citizenship to thousands of newborns annually. The order’s impact would have been significant, affecting an estimated 150,000 children yearly, according to the states challenging the order in court.
The legal challenge, one of several filed against the executive order, proceeded rapidly, leading to the swift judicial intervention.… Continue reading
President Trump’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship, issued on the same day as his constitutional oath, directly contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment’s explicit guarantee of citizenship to those born within U.S. jurisdiction. His attorney general nominee’s noncommittal stance further highlights the potential conflict. Multiple lawsuits challenging early executive orders are now before federal courts, many presided over by judges appointed during Trump’s first term. The outcome of these legal challenges will significantly depend on the rulings of these judges, a substantial portion of whom hold conservative viewpoints.
Read More
A federal lawsuit challenges a new executive order attempting to revoke birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents lacking permanent legal status. This action, deemed “flagrantly illegal,” contradicts the 14th Amendment and established Supreme Court precedent affirming birthright citizenship. Multiple lawsuits, including one from Massachusetts, argue the order violates the Constitution and infringes upon the rights of American-born children, potentially denying them essential benefits and protections. The plaintiffs seek immediate injunctions against the order, emphasizing that the Constitution, not presidential decree, determines citizenship.
Read More
Eighteen states are challenging President Trump’s executive order aiming to curtail birthright citizenship, a move that has sparked intense debate and legal action. The order directs federal agencies to halt the issuance of citizenship documents to U.S.-born children of undocumented mothers or mothers on temporary visas, provided the father is not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. This action has raised serious questions about the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the potential consequences for affected children.
The lawsuit filed by these states highlights the severe implications of denying citizenship to these children, arguing that it would render them stateless. This is a particularly concerning issue, given the existence of programs in some states and cities that allow mothers to anonymously relinquish newborns.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood