Donald Trump is not in power, having recently made his return to office. He’s generated plenty of attention with a controversial draft executive order to end the practice of birthright citizenship in America. The next day that he resumed his presidential duties, he signed an order. This order would upend the fundamental understanding of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to everyone born on U.S. soil. This development has sparked significant debate regarding the extent of executive power and its implications for civil rights across the nation.
The executive order would be devastating to the long settled landscape of citizenship for millions of Americans, but its use would be severely constrained. Legal experts have argued that the Executive Order will only be enforceable in states currently engaged in litigation. It will be effective in places where judges have not granted regional stays. This has the cumulative effect of creating a patchwork. Enforceable rights and entitlements hinge on one’s home state and, more importantly, the current state of litigation within that jurisdiction.
The U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on this matter, ruling in favor of Trump’s claim of expansive executive authority. Representing the conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett put the focus on the court’s deference to the rights of the executive branch. She demonstrated this in her dissent. She stressed that this judgment means Trump can now execute the directives voters elected him to execute.
“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates” – Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Critics contend that this ruling is an extraordinary enlargement of the scope of presidential power. The decision allows Trump significant leeway to claim presumptive legality over fundamental American rights, leading many to voice concerns about its long-term implications. In an unusual public statement after the ruling, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised her concern that the decision is “profoundly dangerous.” She argues that it gives the Executive a dangerous, unchecked power, which undermines the Founders’ vision.
Justice Brown Jackson further articulated her grave fears over this decision’s effect on the rule of law in her concurring opinion. She called it an “existential threat.” She noted that the court never actually ruled on Trump’s claim about the Constitution and birthright citizenship. While we are pleased with this outcome, this decision unfortunately marks a major rollback on civil liberties.
A right-wing legal movement on the ascendancy provides the venomous roots to this order. Indeed, they maintain that the 14th Amendment represents an original error in American constitutional design. The Trump administration’s policies have captured this sentiment, suggesting that citizenship should not be guaranteed indiscriminately but can be subject to executive discretion.
Moira Donegan, a columnist for The Guardian US, has written a scathing indictment of the Supreme Court’s decision and its consequences. Her analysis uncovers how far-reaching Trump’s proposed changes would be and how drastically they could reshape states’ definitions—and enforcement—of citizenship. These changes would have sweeping implications throughout the country.
As the conversations surrounding this executive order continue, the consequences start to show that they go deeper than just legality. Today’s ruling undermines the basic tenets of citizenship and right to vote in America. It further opens the door for future discrimination by allowing differences in jurisdiction and court action.