Justice Department Issues Birthright Citizenship Update
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The U.S. Department of Justice has released an update confirming that it plans to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.
The announcement was disclosed in a joint status report filed Wednesday, August 6, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Why It Matters
The Justice Department's plan to seek a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship—entitled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship"—marks a critical juncture in the national debate over immigration and constitutional rights.
Signed on January 20, 2025, it directs the federal government to deny citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents.
At stake is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil. A ruling in favor of the order could reshape federal authority over citizenship, impact millions of U.S.-born children, and redefine the limits of executive power—making this one of the most consequential legal battles in recent memory.
What To Know
On February 6, 2025, the district court in Seattle issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of President Trump's executive order.
The case under review, State of Washington v. Trump, was just one of several ongoing legal challenges in which lower courts have largely rejected the administration's legal theory. District courts in Maryland (February 5), New Hampshire (February 10), and Massachusetts (February 13), have each upheld that the order conflicted with constitutional protections and halted its enforcement in their respective jurisdictions.
A map showing states where President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship remains restricted, following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on June 27, 2025.
A map showing states where President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship remains restricted, following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on June 27, 2025.
Newsweek/Flourish
One of those judges, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who sits on the federal bench in Boston, granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, affirming that the constitutional guarantee of citizenship applies broadly, and finding the policy to be, "unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute."
The government appealed the ruling and sought partial stays from the district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court denied a partial stay, the Ninth Circuit requested further briefing and, on July 23, upheld the injunction.
The new update came in a joint status report filed August 6, 2025, in which the DOJ stated that Solicitor General D. John Sauer intends to file a petition "expeditiously" for certiorari—a legal term that refers to the process by which a higher court (most commonly the U.S. Supreme Court), agrees to review a lower court's decision—in order to place the case before the Court during its next term, which begins in October.
This means the Justice Department has now formally indicated it will seek a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order; though it has not yet chosen which specific case—or combination of ongoing cases—it will use as the basis for its appeal.
The parties plan to update the court further once those appellate steps are finalized.
An editorial stock photo of a new USA passport. Photographed isolated on a white background.
An editorial stock photo of a new USA passport. Photographed isolated on a white background.
Stock Photo - Getty Images
Fourteenth Amendment At Stake
Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which 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." Courts have consistently upheld this principle for more than a century, most notably in the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
However, the Trump administration argues that the amendment should not apply to children of parents who lack permanent legal status, a position that has been repeatedly rejected by lower courts.
What People Are Saying
President Trump, during an interview with NBC's Meet the Press, December 8, 2024, said: "Do you know if somebody sets a foot—just a foot, one foot, you don't need two—on our land, 'Congratulations you are now a citizen of the United States of America,' … Yes, we're going to end that, because it's ridiculous." Adding: "...we're going to have to get it changed. We'll maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it. … We're the only country that has it, you know."
Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters in June 2025: "Birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court."
DOJ attorneys wrote in the filing: "In light of the Ninth Circuit's decision, Defendants represent that the Solicitor General plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Citizenship Order next Term."
Jessica Levinson, constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, said: "You can't 'executive order' your way out of the Constitution. If you want to end birthright citizenship, you need to amend the Constitution, not issue an executive order."
What Happens Next
The Justice Department must decide which case or combination of cases it will use to challenge lower court rulings and bring the birthright citizenship issue before the Supreme Court. Once it makes that decision, the DOJ will file a petition for certiorari.
The Court is not required to accept every petition, but because this involves a major constitutional question, it is likely to grant review. If that happens, the Court could hear arguments in 2026 and issue a ruling by June of that year.
For now, the Justice Department and attorneys representing plaintiff states—including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—have agreed to submit another update once the appellate process is clarified or if further proceedings in the district court are required. Until then, the order remains unenforceable, lower court rulings blocking Trump's executive order remain in effect, and current birthright citizenship protections continue to apply.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
9 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
European leaders rally behind Ukraine ahead of Trump-Putin meeting
KYIV, Ukraine — European nations have rallied behind Ukraine, saying peace in the war-torn nation can't be resolved without Kyiv, ahead of a planned meeting this week between President Trump and Russia's Vladimir Putin. Trump had said Friday's meeting in Alaska with his Russian counterpart was to discuss ending the more than three-year war. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky responded by thanking European allies and wrote on X on Sunday: 'The end of the war must be fair, and I am grateful to everyone who stands with Ukraine and our people.' Saturday's statement by top European leaders came after the White House confirmed the U.S president was willing to grant Putin the one-on-one meeting Russia has long pushed for, and suggestions from Trump that a peace deal could include 'some swapping of territories.' That raised fears that Ukraine may be pressured into giving up land or accepting other curbs on its sovereignty. A White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity as they aren't allowed to speak publicly, told the Associated Press that Trump remained open to a trilateral summit with both the Russian and Ukrainian leaders, but for now he will have the bilateral meeting requested by Putin. Trump had earlier said he would meet with Putin even if the Russian leader would not meet with Zelensky. On Saturday, U.S. Vice President JD Vance met with top European and Ukrainian officials at the British Foreign Secretary's weekend residence to discuss how to end the war. The Trump-Putin meeting could prove pivotal in a war that began when Russia invaded its smaller neighbor in 2022 and has led to tens of thousands of deaths, although Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart on their conditions for peace. Saturday's statement, signed by the president of the European Union and leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Finland and the U.K., stressed the need for a 'just and lasting peace' for Ukraine, including 'robust and credible' security guarantees. 'Ukraine has the freedom of choice over its own destiny. Meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities,' the statement said. 'The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force,' the Europeans added. A monthlong U.S.-led push to achieve a truce in Ukraine has so far proved fruitless, with Kyiv agreeing in principle while the Kremlin has held out for terms more to its liking. Trump had also moved up an ultimatum to impose additional sanctions on Russia and introduce secondary tariffs targeting countries that buy Russian oil if Moscow did not move toward a settlement. The deadline was Friday. The White House did not answer questions Saturday about possible sanctions. Russia last week reiterated demands that Ukraine give up territory, abandon its bid to join NATO and accept limits on its military in exchange for a withdrawal of Russian troops from the rest of the country. Particularly galling for Kyiv is Moscow's insistence that it cede pockets of eastern and southern Ukraine the Kremlin claims to have annexed, despite lacking full military control. Mark Galeotti, an expert in Russian politics who heads the Mayak Intelligence consultancy in the United Kingdom, says Moscow's tactic of encircling towns in eastern Ukraine has brought a string of territorial gains for Russia, and Putin 'seems to feel he is still winning.' 'Putin does not appear to feel under pressure,' Galeotti argued in an analysis published Sunday by Britain's Sunday Times newspaper. He said that for Putin, 'further delaying any more serious U.S. action and the optics of a meeting with the U.S. president will already be wins.' Zelensky said Saturday that Ukraine 'will not give Russia any awards for what it has done' and that 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.' Ukrainian officials previously told the AP privately that Kyiv would be amenable to a peace deal that would de facto recognize Ukraine's inability to regain lost territories militarily. But Zelensky on Saturday insisted that formally ceding land was out of the question. Galeotti argued that any deal that involves Ukraine abandoning territory would be 'agonizing' and politically dangerous for Zelensky. Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Zelensky, noted on Sunday that Kyiv will strive to boost its position ahead of the planned Trump-Putin meeting. 'Ahead lies an important week of diplomacy,' he said. Kullab writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Michelle L. Price in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.
New York Post
9 minutes ago
- New York Post
Goodbye to DEI, crushed by the weight of its own hypocrisies
President Donald Trump's executive orders banning diversity, equity and inclusion-related racial and gender preferencing have ostensibly doomed the DEI industry. But DEI was already on its last legs. Half of all Americans no longer approve of racial, ethnic or gender preferences. Advertisement DEI had enjoyed a surge following the death of George Floyd and the subsequent 120 days of nonstop rioting, arson, assaults, killings and attacks on law enforcement during the summer of 2020. In those chaotic years, DEI was seen as the answer to racial tensions. DEI had insidiously replaced the old notion of affirmative action — a 1960s-era government remedy for historical prejudices against black Americans, from the legacy of slavery to Jim Crow segregation. But during the Obama era, 'diversity' superseded affirmative action by offering preferences to many groups well beyond black Americans. Advertisement Quite abruptly, Americans began talking in Marxist binaries. On one side were the supposed 65 to 70% white majority 'oppressors' and 'victimizers' — often stereotyped as exuding 'white privilege,' 'white supremacy' or even 'white rage.' They were juxtaposed to the 30 to 35% of 'diverse' Americans, the so-called 'oppressed' and 'victimized.' Advertisement Yet almost immediately, contradictions and hypocrisies undermined DEI. First, how does one define 'diverse' in an increasingly multiracial, intermarried, assimilated and integrated society? DNA badges? The old one-drop rule of the antebellum South? Superficial appearance? To establish racial or ethnic proof of being one-sixteenth, one-fourth, or one-half 'non-white,' employers, corporations and universities would have to become racially obsessed genealogists. Advertisement Yet refusing to become racial auditors also would allow racial and ethnic fraudsters — like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the would-be mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani — to go unchecked. Warren falsely claimed Native American heritage to leverage a Harvard professorship. Mamdani, an immigrant son of wealthy Indian immigrants from Uganda, tried to game his way into college by claiming he was African American. Second, in 21st-century America, class became increasingly divergent from race. Mamdani, who promises to tax 'affluent' and 'whiter' neighborhoods at higher rates, is himself the child of Indian immigrants, the most affluent ethnic group in America. Why would the children of Barack Obama, Joy Reid or LeBron James need any special preferences, given the multimillionaire status of their parents? In other words, one's superficial appearance no longer necessarily determines one's income or wealth, nor defines 'privilege' or lack thereof. Third, DEI is often tied to questions of 'reparations.' The current white majority supposedly owes other particular groups financial or entitlement compensation for the sins of the past. Advertisement Yet in today's multiracial and multiethnic society, in which over 50 million residents were not born in the United States and many have only recently arrived, what are the particular historical or past grievances that would earn anyone special treatment? What injustices can recent arrivals from southern Mexico, South Korea or Chad claim, knowing little about, and experiencing no firsthand bias from, Americans, the United States, or its history? Is the DEI logic that when a Guatemalan steps one foot across the southern border, she is suddenly classified as a victim of white oppression and therefore entitled to preferences in hiring or employment? Fourth, does the word 'minority' still carry any currency? Advertisement In today's California, the demography breaks down as 40% Latino, 34% white, 16% Asian American or Pacific Islander, 6% black, and 3% Other — with no significant majority and fewer whites than the Latino 'minority.' Are Latinos the new de facto 'majority' and 'whites' just one of the four other 'minorities?' Do the other minorities, then, have grievances against Latinos, given that they are the dominant population in the state? Fifth, when does DEI 'proportional representation' apply, and when does it not? Are whites 'overrepresented' among the nation's university faculties, reportedly 75% white, when they comprise only about 70% of the population? Advertisement Or, are whites 'underrepresented' as college students, making up just 55% of them, and thus in need of DEI action to bump up their numbers? Black athletes are vastly overrepresented in lucrative and prestigious professional sports. To correct such asymmetries, should Asians and Hispanics be given mandated quotas for quarterback or point-guard positions to ensure proper athletic 'diversity, equity and inclusion'? Sixth, DEI determines good and bad prejudices, as well as correct and incorrect biases. 'Affinity' segregationist graduations — black, Hispanic, Asian and gay — are considered 'affirming'. Advertisement But would a similar affinity graduation ceremony for European-Americans or Jews be considered 'racist'? Is a Latino-themed, de facto segregated house on a California campus considered 'enlightened,' while a European-American dorm would be condemned as incendiary? In truth, DEI long ago became corrupt, falling apart under the weight of its own paradoxes and hypocrisies. It is a perniciously divisive idea — unable to define who qualifies for preference or why, who is overrepresented or not, or when bias is acceptable or unjust. And it is past time that it goes away. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
US should fix the gender gap in refugee protection
In a recent decision denying asylum to a Salvadoran woman being stalked by gang members, the Board of Immigration Appeals — the highest administrative body for interpreting U.S. immigration law — found that under U.S. law, her claim that Salvadoran women constitute a group of people at risk of persecution was 'overbroad and insufficiently particular to be cognizable.' The foundation of refugee law — both internationally and in the U.S. — is that asylum should be provided to a person with a well-founded fear of being persecuted on any of five grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or 'membership in a particular social group.' This last category is intended to protect people similarly exposed to persecution as the other four groups because of immutable characteristics that cannot be changed or beliefs so fundamental they should not be required to change them. There are precedents in both U.S. and international law for treating women as a 'particular social group.' In Perdomo v. Holder and Mohammed v. Gonzales, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that gender is an 'innate characteristic' that is 'fundamental to [one's] identity.' In two cases, the European Union Court of Justice found that Afghan women, as women, are subject to persecution. But in denying this woman's claim, the Board said, 'If we held that groups defined solely by sex were cognizable, we would essentially create another protected ground under the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] — that of sex — to add to the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.' That, it said, would be a job for Congress. Because 'membership in a particular social group' is so open to interpretation — including very narrow interpretations like the Board's — the challenge to Congress should be raised. What is the logic in saying that individuals should be denied asylum because the persecuted group they are a part of is too large? In a country where any group of people is widely persecuted, it shouldn't matter whether that group is large or small to decide whether one of its members needs protection. All that should matter is the likelihood of the risk that person faces and the severity of the threat to them or of the abuse they have experienced. Of course, being a woman per se is not grounds for asylum, any more than being a member of any race, nationality or religion. But gender should be similarly recognized as a category deserving protection if it is the reason a specific woman is being persecuted. Some women have advanced successful asylum claims by identifying themselves as members of a small, highly specific group. In the landmark Fauzia Kasinga case, a woman fleeing genital mutilation was granted asylum not based on her right not to be persecuted on the basis of her gender, but rather as a member of a particular social group, defined as 'young women who are members of the Tchamba-Kasungu Tribe of northern Togo who have not been subjected to female genital mutilation, as practiced by that tribe, and who oppose the practice.' A more narrowly defined group is hardly conceivable. Often, though, the compulsion to particularize can distort the reality of persecution. Consider women in Afghanistan under the Taliban. All Afghan girls are barred from education beyond the sixth grade. No woman is allowed to attend university and all face severe restrictions on employment. A woman is not allowed to walk outside her home unless accompanied by a male relative, limiting access to public spaces and services, including access to health care. Violations of the hijab dress code and other draconian rules are met with severe punishment. In September 2024, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan said the 'Taliban's institutionalized system of…gender persecution…impacts almost the entire population.' When Congress next looks at U.S. immigration law, it should question why women should have to shoehorn their claims into a narrow understanding of membership of a particular social group and thereby have less consistent or predictable protection than racial, religious, nationality and political groups. In light of the Board of Immigration Appeals' narrow reading of existing law, Congress should amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to add gender as an unequivocally protected ground of the refugee definition standing alongside race, religion, nationality and political opinion.
