Legal advocacy groups have moved to block two new executive orders signed by President Donald Trump that seek to restrict birthright citizenship for certain groups of children born in the United States. The orders, issued on August 6, target children born to foreign diplomats, individuals designated as 'alien enemies,' and parents engaged in 'birth tourism.' The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other plaintiffs filed motions in federal court in New Hampshire on August 11, arguing that the orders violate the 14th Amendment and defy a recent Supreme Court ruling.
Two new executive orders restrict citizenship for specific groups
On August 6, President Trump signed two executive orders aimed at limiting birthright citizenship protections. The first order, titled 'Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,' directs federal agencies not to recognize U.S. citizenship for children born in the U.S. if neither parent is a citizen and either parent is an 'alien enemy,' a foreign government employee, or engaged in a commercial transaction to obtain citizenship. The second order targets 'birth tourism,' restricting visas for individuals entering the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth to secure citizenship for their children.
Legal groups seek immediate injunctions
On August 11, the ACLU and other migrant advocacy groups filed a motion in the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire, asking Judge Joseph Laplante to clarify or expand a previous injunction blocking Trump’s earlier attempt to end birthright citizenship. The plaintiffs argue that the new orders are equally unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court’s June 30 ruling in Trump v. Barbara should bar their enforcement. The motion states that Trump’s actions represent an ongoing attempt to circumvent the Court’s decision through narrower executive directives.
Supreme Court ruling sets legal precedent
The Supreme Court’s June 30 decision in Trump v. Barbara rejected the president’s prior executive order seeking to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and legal temporary visitors. The Court reaffirmed that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship for all individuals born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction. The ruling was issued in a 7-2 decision, with the majority emphasizing the constitutional protection of birthright citizenship.
Trump defends orders as necessary policy adjustments
In remarks from the Oval Office on August 6, Trump framed the orders as measures to prevent exploitation of birthright citizenship. He stated, 'They're buying their way in, and we're not going to let it happen. We're making adjustments because it's very unfair.' The administration has not provided a legal justification for bypassing the Supreme Court’s ruling, instead arguing that the new orders target narrower categories of individuals.
Legal challenges focus on constitutional violations
The ACLU and other plaintiffs contend that Trump’s new orders represent an unconstitutional expansion of executive power. Their filing argues that the orders create new exceptions to the Citizenship Clause, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld. The motion seeks a declaratory judgment that the orders are unlawful and requests an injunction to prevent their enforcement. Legal experts note that the case hinges on whether the new orders can be distinguished from the previously blocked executive action.
Broader implications for immigration policy
The legal battle over birthright citizenship has become a focal point in broader debates over immigration policy. Advocacy groups warn that the orders could set a precedent for further restrictions on citizenship rights. Meanwhile, supporters of the administration’s approach argue that the orders address specific loopholes in existing immigration laws. The outcome of the case could influence future executive actions on immigration and citizenship.