Immigration groups have filed a lawsuit against U.S. President Donald Trump after he signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship.
The lawsuit was filed in New Hampshire on Monday evening, hours after Trump signed the controversial order at the White House.
The order seeks to end the automatic granting of U.S. citizenship to children born in the country to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present.
It challenges over a century of U.S. policy and legal interpretations of the Constitution, and it is set to take effect in 30 days.
Trump defended his decision during a briefing on Monday, stating, “The federal government will not recognize automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens born in the United States. We are also going to enhance vetting and screening of illegal aliens.”
Ending birthright citizenship is a significant part of Trump’s Agenda47 policy platform. His campaign has argued for a narrower interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
The amendment, ratified in 1868, states: “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.”
Trump’s campaign claims that citizenship should only apply to those “born in AND ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States,” a view supported by some conservative legal scholars.
The lawsuit by immigration advocates argues that the order violates the Constitution. For decades, courts and legal experts have maintained that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil.
The American Immigration Council noted that while the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of foreign diplomats, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the principle of birthright citizenship.
If upheld, the order could reshape the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, sparking significant legal and political debates.
The Justice Department, tasked with defending the order, will need to convince courts to adopt the narrower interpretation, potentially setting a precedent for future immigration policies.
