Washington, D.C. – A coalition of plaintiffs, including two mothers and several nonprofit organizations, is urgently seeking a federal court injunction to block President Donald Trump’s controversial Executive Order 14160, which aims to redefine birthright citizenship by denying automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented mothers.
Trump issued the Executive Order on January 20, 2025.
The order has sparked a fierce legal battle, with the plaintiffs arguing it violates the Fourteenth Amendment and federal law. On July 2, their 55-page motion for partial summary judgment demands a halt to the order’s enforcement, citing its profound threat to constitutional rights as the nation celebrates its 249th Independence Day.
Why It Matters
The original petition initiated by three Doe plaintiffs—a mother, her infant, and an expectant mother—alongside OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates and other advocacy groups, alleges that Executive Order 14160 breaches the Fourteenth Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and other federal statutes.
An amended complaint expanded these claims, asserting that the order’s attempt to exclude children of undocumented mothers from citizenship, unless their father has legal status, undermines centuries of legal precedent. The plaintiffs warn that the policy threatens “irreparable harm” to families and communities by stripping citizenship from U.S.-born children.
The motion, presented to U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, seeks an injunction to prevent the order’s implementation. “As the nation commemorates its 249th Independence Day, this Court should declare the Defendants’ actions illegal and enjoin their enforcement,” the filing states, emphasizing the symbolic weight of challenging an unconstitutional order during a time of national celebration.
The plaintiffs aim to resolve the case swiftly at the district court level, arguing that the order’s numerous legal and constitutional violations demand immediate action.
The Fourteenth Amendment Under Fire
At the core of the lawsuit lies the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares: “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.”
The plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration’s policy—excluding children of undocumented mothers—lacks any basis in the amendment’s text.
“The Clause includes no hereditary prerequisite to citizenship, nor does it condition citizenship on the parents’ immigration status,” the motion asserts. “The only requirements are birth in the United States and subjection to its jurisdiction.”
The administration counters by interpreting “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” narrowly, citing an 1884 Supreme Court ruling that defines it as requiring “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S., unencumbered by foreign ties.
In a 46-page motion to dismiss, the government claims that children of undocumented mothers do not meet this standard due to their parents’ lack of legal status. A Department of Justice attorney, in a related Ninth Circuit case, offered an example of a U.S. citizen abroad facing treason charges but protected from foreign prosecution, suggesting a complex view of jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs dismiss this interpretation as a distortion, arguing that the “jurisdiction” clause applies only to narrow exceptions, such as children of diplomats, those born on foreign public ships, or members of hostile foreign armies.
“Children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants are within the sovereign power of the United States,” the motion states, citing the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case “United States v. Wong Kim Ark,” which upheld birthright citizenship for children of noncitizens.
READ ALSO: Clinic in District Trump Won by Over 50 Points Shuts Down
Historical Precedent Against Executive Overreach
The plaintiffs’ motion leans heavily on historical and judicial precedent, noting that courts and political figures in the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment’s 1868 ratification consistently affirmed its broad application.
The “Wong Kim Ark” decision, they argue, solidified the principle that all individuals born on U.S. soil—except those explicitly excluded—are citizens. “More than a century of judicial interpretations since “Wong Kim Ark” confirm the breadth of the Citizenship Clause,” the motion states, accusing the administration of crafting an interpretation “divorced from the text.”
The lawsuit also alleges that the executive order violates the APA by bypassing Congress’s authority to regulate citizenship and failing to follow proper administrative procedures. By seeking summary judgment, the plaintiffs aim to short-circuit the litigation, arguing that the order’s legal flaws are so evident it cannot be allowed to stand.
READ MORE: Trump’s Confused ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ Remark Sparks Cognitive Decline Fears
A Polarized Debate
The executive order has ignited fierce debate, with reactions flooding platforms like X. “Trump’s rewriting the Constitution to target immigrant kids—shameful,” one user posted, echoing sentiments from advocacy groups.
Another countered, “This stops anchor babies and protects our sovereignty. Trump’s doing what’s right.” The polarized responses reflect the broader cultural and political divide over immigration, intensified by Trump’s aggressive policies, including the 2026 budget’s Medicaid cuts and the troubled “Alligator Alcatraz” detention center.
Immigrant rights organizations, including OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates, have rallied behind the plaintiffs, framing the order as an assault on American values. “Birthright citizenship is a pillar of our democracy,” an OCA spokesperson declared. “This order threatens families and equality.”
Trump supporters, however, argue it addresses immigration loopholes, aligning with his pledge to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants.
The Road Ahead
The case could escalate to higher courts as Judge Kelly reviews the injunction request, potentially reaching the Supreme Court given its constitutional significance.
The outcome will shape the future of birthright citizenship and influence the 2026 midterms, where immigration remains a flashpoint. The plaintiffs’ fight coincides with other controversies, including lawsuits against Trump’s Voice of America layoffs and rural healthcare closures tied to Medicaid cuts.
Discover more from Local Stories
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.