The Birthright Citizenship Case Could Split the Country in Two
For generations, the birth certificate has been the cornerstone of how Americans verify their citizenship. But that standard may soon be upended.
On Day 1 of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order attempting to rewrite the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and end birthright citizenship as we know it. The order said that children of immigrants would no longer receive U.S. citizenship unless one of their parents had already been naturalized or had a green card. This meant that the children of Dreamers and many other immigrants who have lived their whole lives in the United States would no longer be born citizens.
Within 24 hours, multiple lawsuits were filed to challenge the order. On Feb. 5, Judge Deborah L. Boardman of the U.S. District Court in Maryland issued a nationwide injunction stopping the federal government from putting this unconstitutional policy into effect. Since then, every court to consider this issue has ruled that Mr. Trump's order should not go into effect.
There have been several news stories about the birthright citizenship case, and the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on Thursday. The majority of these stories have focused on technical legal questions: whether and under what circumstances lower courts should be able to issue nationwide temporary injunctions and stop a federal policy from going into effect nationwide while the case winds its way through the courts. But the focus on this legal question has obscured what is really at stake: the definition of U.S. citizenship and what it means to be an American.
If the Trump administration prevails in its crusade to overturn birthright citizenship, it will result in a population of newborns without legal status.
Since Reconstruction, any child born in the United States has been able to access citizenship, regardless of their parents nationality or race.
As more immigrants came to the United States, some argued that their children shouldn't qualify for citizenship. In 1898 the Supreme Court rejected that view, ruling that children born to immigrants are protected under the 14th Amendment. And the matter was considered settled until now.
In this case, the government sidestepped the core issue of birthright citizenship, instead focusing its argument on the narrower question of whether judges should be able to issue nationwide injunctions. As a result, the case will not provide a final resolution on the main constitutional question. The issue of birthright citizenship could again make its way to the Court as early as next year, challenging the executive order on constitutional and statutory grounds. At that point, the court could declare the basis of it unconstitutional.
Still, if the government prevails in this case, Mr. Trump's unilateral reinterpretation of the Constitution will, for now, be implemented in 28 states, and that suspension of birthright citizenship, even if it only lasts a few months, will have profound consequences.
Although the plaintiffs in this case will remain protected by the injunction, all families will still be required to prove that their children have a legal right to live in the United States — a process that could prove both costly and stressful. Even U.S. citizens would have to provide identification to confirm their children's citizenship, or even prove their own legal status, as a birth certificate alone would no longer be sufficient.
Babies denied U.S. citizenship could be denied other forms of identification, making it difficult or impossible to receive essential vaccines or obtain a social security number. Health insurers could refuse coverage for these stateless babies, meaning a premature infant in need of urgent care could be denied treatment. Hospitals could also be forced to assess the citizenship status of parents in delivery rooms, raising the risk of discrimination against those wrongly assumed to be immigrants.
Children who have no legal status could be vulnerable to deportation. This is an alarming proposition given that this administration is paying El Salvador millions of dollars to imprison men indefinitely with no due process.
It's worth noting that this order will affect all types of immigrants, even those the government has no legal authority to deport. That includes people who have been granted temporary status, Dreamers and others who have been approved for immigration benefits but are stuck in immigration processing limbo. Immigrant parents with legal status may face the threat that their children could be deported. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where this administration pays another country to take in the growing number of stateless children — with or without their parents.
If the Supreme Court eventually hears a case on the merits of the executive order itself and finds it unconstitutional, then the federal government will have to create a process to ensure these potentially stateless children can access U.S. citizenship. If the Trump administration refuses, it could create an underclass of children who have limited rights. We don't yet know what that will mean in the long term.
In the meantime, if the court allows this order to go into effect, even temporarily, the executive branch could be emboldened to go further in its attempts to undermine the constitutional rights that hold our imperfect democracy together.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - More renters are getting lawyers during evictions, and that's a good thing
Last year, landlords in Los Angeles filed almost 90,000 eviction cases. These cases are hard on tenants: Beyond just the immediate loss of housing, eviction leads to drops in income, higher rates of homelessness, serious health issues, and even increased risk of death. Yet the vast majority of Angelenos who navigate the complex eviction court process do so alone. That is about to change. Last month, Los Angeles joined 18 other cities, two counties, and five states across the nation where most or all tenants are guaranteed a lawyer when they go to court for an eviction. These 'right-to-counsel' programs improve outcomes for individual tenants, but their impact goes further: They can help to coordinate services, change the way the courts operate, and open up new possibilities for tenant organizing. As researchers who study eviction in the U.S., we urge more jurisdictions to push forward housing justice and stability for renters by extending the right to counsel. These programs are particularly important now. Over the last twenty years, rents have gone up much faster than incomes, leaving half of renters cost-burdened. Faced with these sorts of affordability challenges — and given evidence that homelessness is at an all-time high and rising — the federal government should be taking steps to protect renters. Instead, it is making the situation worse. The Trump administration is proposing shrinking the Department of Housing and Urban Development and gutting key benefits such as Housing Choice Vouchers. Right-to-counsel programs provide an example of what state and local governments can do to step into the leadership void created by federal retrenchment. Pop culture has sold us the myth that every defendant has the right to an attorney. But that's not true. Americans aren't necessarily guaranteed a government-funded lawyer when faced with a civil action such as debt collection, a child custody claim, or a landlord-tenant dispute. They're on their own unless they can afford a lawyer, and most people can't. These civil actions are far more common than criminal cases. In any given year, almost half of Americans have to deal with a civil legal case. Take eviction, for example. An average of 7.6 million Americans face eviction cases annually; only 4 percent of these tenants have lawyers to help them through this rapid, complicated, and deeply consequential process. That started changing in 2017, when New York City established the nation's first right to counsel program. Since then, this movement has expanded protections for renters in San Francisco, Baltimore, Detroit, and dozens of other places. Although programs differ in who receives access to a lawyer and when in the process they can get help, the basic idea is the same: to provide tenants with legal assistance during what may be their darkest hour. For tenants who now have lawyers, these programs make a world of difference. Eviction filings are less likely to result in a tenant being removed by court order, and even those that do result in evictions often leave the tenant owing less money. The benefits to health and well-being are also substantial. For example, the availability of right to counsel during pregnancy reduces adverse birth outcomes among newborns. At the end of the day, a lawyer cannot make up for missed rent. But in our work studying how jurisdictions have implemented right-to-counsel, we have seen how the presence of lawyers defending tenants can lead to wholesale culture shifts in civil courts — something that rental assistance and other one-time interventions don't achieve. We have seen courts where, rather than just rubber-stamping landlords' eviction cases, judges now inform tenants of their rights and postpone hearings to make sure that they are represented. Courts can become a place where advocates and social workers connect tenants with services and resources and diversion is a priority. To meet their full potential, state and local leaders need to provide the stable, long-term funding necessary to launch and run these programs right. That means adequate money for outreach and education so that tenants know that protections are available if they show up to court. It also means sufficient funding to ensure that enough lawyers are available, a challenge that the New York City program has faced. San Francisco provides a model of how to do this right, steadily increasing funding, even expanding support during the pandemic when other programs were being cut. Right to counsel programs are bringing change, justice, and hope for renters experiencing one of the most difficult challenges of their lives. As the federal government pulls back supports and reverses longstanding legal protections for low-income renters, it's time for state and local leaders to work together to expand protections like right-to-counsel in a sustainable way that can help as many families as possible avoid the irreversible fallout of eviction and the risk of homelessness. Peter Hepburn is an assistant professor of sociology at Rutgers University-Newark and associate director of Princeton University's Eviction Lab. Emily A. Benfer is a professor of clinical law at the George Washington University Law School and a research collaborator at the Princeton University Eviction Lab. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration threat to end Harvard contracts puts research at risk
May 30 (UPI) -- The Trump administration is seeking to end all contracts it has with Harvard University, a move that adds to the strain between the federal government and America's researchers. The administration announced on Tuesday that it is in the process of reviewing its contracts with Harvard in preparation for their termination. The move may cost the United States a generation of top researchers, Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff in the American Council of Education's government relations department, told UPI. "We're going to lose grad students or post-docs that might have been educated in those federally funded labs," Spreitzer said. "The undergrads are going to lose the opportunity of working alongside those researchers and learning from their work." Harvard has contracts partnering with government departments including NASA, Veterans Affairs, the Office of the Secretary in the Department of Commerce and the Small Business Administration. Dozens of these contracts have been entered into, extended or otherwise updated since President Donald Trump took office. Harvard University did not respond to requests for comment from UPI. One of the largest contracts Harvard holds with the government is a $15 million contract from the Department of Health and Human Services. It is described in the Federal Procurement Data System as a "task order for human organ chip enabled development of radiation countermeasures." It was entered into on July 26. Another of its largest contracts is a $10.6 million contract with the National Institutes of Health for tuberculosis research. Harvard holds more than one contract with the government related to this work. "They want to do more with less," Spreitzer said of the Trump administration. "They're making decisions based on budgetary impacts but that's layered on top of some of the regulatory actions that they are taking, which is really, again, slowing down or completely stalling the scientific process." The Trump administration has cut research funding grants to several universities, many of them Ivy League schools. It has also made cuts to programs in the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among others that offer grant opportunities to universities. Since World War II, the U.S. government has leaned on universities to expand its research capabilities, leading to innovations in health, technology, economics and other disciplines. Spreitzer, who has been an advocate for higher education for 20 years. In that time she said she has interacted with nearly every federal agency, said the partnership has advanced the interests of the government and delivered value to U.S. taxpayers. "Right now we are at this historical inflection point where the federal government is rethinking their partnership with our institutions of higher education," she said. "It's been a very profitable and very important partnership that's helped the entire United States. Whether you're talking about new drugs or medical research or the innovative products that might be spun out and have created jobs." The rethinking of the partnership between the government and universities goes beyond contracts and grants. It is also proposing a lower cap on its reimbursement to universities for indirect costs or facilities and administrative costs. These are overhead expenses that an institution has that are not related to specific projects, such as government-funded research. Prior to the current Trump administration, the National Institutes of Health reimbursed an average of 27% to 28% of direct costs to universities to help cover indirect costs. These rates were negotiated with some institutions being reimbursed at rates more than 50%. There has not been a cap on most reimbursements since Congress removed them in 1965. In February, the National Institutes of Health announced a new policy to cap these reimbursements at 15%. The American Council on Education filed a lawsuit seeking to block the proposed cap, warning that it would greatly disrupt research across the country. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs granted a preliminary injunction against the Department of Energy from instituting a rate cap policy. The injunction succeeds a temporary restraining order Burroughs granted against the administration, shielding all institutions of higher education from rate caps. "It would have a huge impact on our institutions," Spreitzer said. "They've also made huge cuts in some of the fellowship programs. Whether it's the fellowship program for the next generation of NSF scientists or whether it's the Fulbright program -- those have all been suddenly stopped."
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kremlin welcomes US readiness to discuss NATO's eastern non-expansion
The Kremlin has welcomed a statement by Keith Kellogg, US President Donald Trump's special envoy for Ukraine, that the United States considers Russia's concerns about NATO expansion to be justified. Source: Kremlin-aligned Russian news agency Interfax, citing Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, as reported by European Pravda Details: Peskov said that Russia welcomes the fact that Washington "understands" its negative stance on NATO's eastward expansion. Quote from Peskov: "President Putin consistently conveys to foreign officials, including American representatives, our position on the inadmissibility of NATO's expansion to the east from the standpoint of Russia's strategic interests. We are glad that the president's explanations are being understood, including in Washington." [N.B. Ukrainska Pravda does not recognise Putin as president – ed.] Details: Peskov added that this understanding by the US is "very pleasing" to Russia in light of the mediating role Washington continues to play. Meanwhile, he noted that it is preferable to discuss this issue during a closed-door interaction. Peskov agreed that Kellogg's recent statements could be considered the result of such confidential negotiations. Background: In an interview with ABC News, Kellogg stated that the United States considers Russia's concerns about NATO expansion fair and is ready to discuss the matter. "And they're not just talking Ukraine – they're talking the country of Georgia, they're talking Moldova, they're talking, obviously, Ukraine," Kellogg noted. "And we're saying 'Okay, comprehensively, you know, we can stop the expansion of NATO coming close to your border'. That's security concerns from them." Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy previously stated that Kyiv must be present at the NATO summit in The Hague, and the absence of an invitation would appear as "a victory for Putin over NATO". Earlier, it was reported that because of Trump, NATO is preparing a mini-declaration for the summit in The Hague that will likely not mention Ukraine. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
