Updated January 22, 2025 at 12:17 PM ET
The legal fight over President Trump and many conservatives' wish to end birthright citizenship for children of immigrants living in the country without legal status is underway.
A group of 18 Democratic state attorneys general sued the Trump administration Tuesday over its executive order titled "PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP." Two other lawsuits have been filed.
The Trump administration argues in the order that the 14th Amendment "has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'" The order would exclude from automatic U.S. citizenship babies born after Feb. 19 to parents who are "unlawfully" present or have "lawful but temporary" status in the U.S..
In the lawsuit, states argue that "The President has no authority to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment or duly enacted statute. Nor is he empowered by any other source of law to limit who receives United States citizenship at birth."
But beyond that, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said the administration is "twisting itself in knots" given its stated goal of deporting all immigrants living in the country without legal status.
The lawsuit further argues that children denied automatic citizenship "will live under a constant threat of deportation," potentially meaning they'd be under some degree of jurisdiction of the United States.
"For an administration that is taking such a hard line on undocumented immigration and removing those individuals, saying they do not have jurisdiction over those people is directly in contradiction to what they are saying in other aspects of their immigration policy," Platkin told Morning Edition.
Platkin discussed the lawsuit and the administration's interpretation with NPR's Steve Inskeep.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Steve Inskeep: I want to go to the Constitution here. The administration's case revolves around the first sentence of the 14th Amendment. It begins "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States." What does that mean to you? In the case of someone who's born in the U.S. and one or both of their parents are here illegally?
Matthew Platkin: Birthright citizenship has been part of the fabric of this nation for centuries. And it was put in the Constitution 157 years ago in the wake of the Civil War, when the people of this nation said we were no longer going to let the political whims determine whether or not someone born on United States soil is an American citizen. And it's been upheld by the Supreme Court multiple times. This is until Monday night, not something that was ever contested by a president who signed an order that was extraordinary, unprecedented and upended the rule of law.
Inskeep: Well, let's go through the two key phrases in that sentence that I read the first part. All persons born. I can't believe I need to ask this, but I'm going to ask this: Does "all persons born in the United States" mean all persons born in the United States?
Platkin: Of course it does. And courts have said so for centuries.
Inskeep: OK. But then the other part is the part the administration is focusing on all persons born in the United States "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is said that that phrase gives some wiggle room. You could redefine who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and say someone born in the United States, to a person who's here without legal status is not subject to the jurisdiction. What do you make of that part of the argument?
Platkin: I think the administration is twisting itself in knots to try to find a political way of making an argument. There's no good legal argument that people born here are not subject to our jurisdiction. And frankly, for an administration that is taking such a hard line on undocumented immigration and removing those individuals, saying they do not have jurisdiction over those people is directly in contradiction to what they are saying in other aspects of their immigration policy.
So again, this has not been a controversial legal position for centuries. And for 157 years, the plain text of the Constitution has provided this right. And all we are saying is that while presidents are powerful, they are not kings, and they cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen.
Inskeep: Many of the Supreme Court justices describe themselves as originalists. They'll want to go back to the original public, meaning or they may even go into the intent in some cases. So tell me, do you understand why the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in there?
Platkin: Well, I think you have to remember the reason why birthright citizenship is in the 14th Amendment. Again, 157 years ago in the wake of this nation's Civil War.
Inskeep: Yeah, I get that. But why is that phrase in there? It does seem to limit the power in some way.
Platkin: But again, Steve, courts have already reviewed this and said very clearly that people born here – going back to the 1890s, the Supreme Court has reviewed this and said people born here are subject.
Inskeep: Is it an exception for the children of diplomats who aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Is that what this is about?
Platkin: There is potentially that, but the order is not focused on diplomats. The order is much more broadly targeted on people born here to non-citizen parents, which again has been something we have provided American citizenship for centuries.
Inskeep: Are you prepared to file a lot of lawsuits against this administration?
Platkin: We're prepared to stand up for the rule of law, and that's what we're doing here and that's what we'll continue to do.
This article was edited by Treye Green.
Copyright 2025 NPR
