The State of Maine, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine (ACLU Maine), have filed lawsuits against the Trump Administration over an Executive Order signed Monday redefining birthright citizenship.
“That’s a big one,” President Donald Trump (R) said as an aide handed him the Executive Order.
“We’re the only country in the world that does this,” said President Trump. “It’s ridiculous.”
Donald Trump just signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.
— Christian Heiens 🏛 (@ChristianHeiens) January 21, 2025
This is one of the most important issues he can pick a fight on. It will be challenged immediately, and we need to stand with him every step of the way in this fight. pic.twitter.com/cnAafJcgVC
Trump said his administration believes the order is on strong legal footing, though he predicted that legal challenges would come, as they did almost immediately following his inauguration.
Whether or not the children of illegal aliens, visa-holders, and those with pending asylum claims will automatically become U.S. citizens will depend on how courts — potentially including the U.S. Supreme Court — interpret the Fourteenth Amendment.
Ratified in 1868, this Amendment 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.
Currently, the United States grants full citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of whether their parents are in the country legally or illegally.
Incorporated into the Constitution in the wake of the Civil War, this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to ensure that all formerly enslaved people would be granted citizenship.
By ratifying this amendment, the nation overturned the infamous 1857 Supreme Court ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford wherein the Justices decided that enslaved people were not United States citizens.
A few decades after the amendment was officially added to the Constitution, it came before the Court in the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, wherein the citizenship status Wong Kim Ark — who was born in the San Fransisco to parents who were Chinese citizens living and working in America — was called into question.
Under the Naturalization Act of 1802, Ark’s parents were ineligible to become naturalized citizens, as Congress continued to limit eligibility for naturalization to “free white persons
.”
The 6-2 majority opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case, authored by Justice Horace Gray, established the principle of jus soli, or right of soil.
According to Britannica, under jus soli — commonly referred to as birthright citizenship — citizenship is acquired at birth regardless of the status of one’s parents. More simply, jus soli can be understood to guarantee “the citizenship of children born in the United States to non-citizens.”
By the early 21st century, thirty-five countries granted unrestricted birthright citizenship, while forty more were doing so with certain restrictions.
In 1940, Congress passed a law that included language mirroring that of the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that “person[s] born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” “shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”
President Trump’s Executive Order — titled Protecting the Meaning and value of American Citizenship — states that “the privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift.”
“The Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States,” Trump wrote. “The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United State but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'”
The order establishes that “it is the policy of the United States” that citizenship shall not be granted to those whose “mother was unlawfully present in the United States and [whose] father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”
Birthright citizenship would also not be extended to those whose “mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and [whose] father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”
This clause of the Executive Order would likely impact the ability of children born to those with pending asylum claims, as well as those who are in the United States on temporary work, student or tourist visas, to obtain birthright citizenship.
These restrictions would be applicable to children born starting thirty days after the order was signed.
When Trump signed the order Monday evening, he told reporters that he believes the nation’s current policy on birthright citizenship is “just absolutely ridiculous,” adding that he feels his Administration has “very good [legal] ground” to change this interpretation.
Click Here to Read the Full Executive Order
Tuesday’s lawsuit challenging the order was filed by ACLU Maine, as well as the national ACLU, ACLU New Hampshire, ACLU Massachusetts, Asian Law Caucus, State Democracy Defenders Fund, and Legal Defense Fund.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and Make the Road New York.
The suit alleges that Trump’s Executive Order is both unconstitutional and unlawful, citing the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wong Kim Ark, and the statutory language approved by Congress in 1940.
The plaintiffs argue in their lawsuit that the only exception to birthright citizenship that exists today concerns the children of foreign diplomats.
“Birthright citizenship embodies America’s most fundamental promise: that all children born on our soil begin life as full and equal members of our nation community, regardless of their parents’ origins, status, or circumstances,” the lawsuit states. “This principle has enabled generations of children to pursue their dreams and build a stronger America.”
“The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically enshrined this principle in our Constitution’s text to ensure that no one — not even the President — could deny children born in America their rightful place as citizens,” the filing argues.
Under the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the “Citizenship Clause was enacted with full knowledge among both proponents and opponents that it would guarantee the citizenship of children of noncitizens.”
They go on to argue that “stripping children of the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship is a grave injury,” denying “them the full membership in U.S. society to which they are entitled.”
“By attacking the principle that all children born in this country are citizens, the Order will invite persistent questioning of the citizenship of children of immigrants — particularly children of color,” the lawsuit contends.
The lawsuit makes four claims for relief, two based on the argument that the Executive Order is unconstitutional and two based on the contention that the order is unlawful.
Click Here to Read the Full Lawsuit
“Denying citizenship to U.S. born children is not only unconstitutional — it’s also a reckless and ruthless repudiation of American values,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, in a statement Monday.
“Birthright citizenship is part of what makes the United States the strong and dynamic nation that it is,” Romero said. “This order seeks to repeat one of the gravest errors in American history, by creating a permanent subclass of people born in the U.S. who are denied full rights as Americans.”
“We will not let this attack on newborns and future generations of Americans go unchallenged,” Romero concluded. “The Trump administration’s overreach is so egregious that we are confident we will ultimately prevail.”
Click Here to Read ACLU Maine’s Full Press Release
Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey’s lawsuit against the Trump Administration — filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in conjunction with eighteen other states and the City of San Fransisco — seeks to invalidate the Executive Order and enjoin any actions taken to implement it.
To accomplish this, the plaintiffs are asking the court both for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction.
In addition to the claims concerning the impact of the Executive Order on individuals levied by the ACLU, this lawsuit argues that the Executive Order would also harm states by reducing the amount of federal funding they receive for services that are provided currently being provided to those who would be excluded from citizenship.
They also not that there would be a “considerable expense” associated with modifying the administration of their benefits programs to account for the changes exacted by the Executive Order.
“In addition to harming hundreds of thousands of residents, the States’ filing explains that today’s order significantly harms the States themselves too,” a statement from the Attorney General’s Office explained.
“Among other things, this Order will cause the States to lose federal funding to programs that they administer, such as Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and foster care and adoption assistance programs, which all turn at least in part on the immigration status of the resident being served. States will also be required—on no notice and at its considerable expense—to immediately begin modifying their operation and administration of benefits programs to account for this change, which will require significant burdens for multiple agencies that operate programs for the benefit of the States’ residents,” the Attorney General’s Office wrote.
“The States’ filing explains that they should not have to bear these dramatic costs while their case proceeds because the Order is directly inconsistent with the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and two U.S. Supreme Court decisions,” the Attorney General’s Office concluded.
“It was anticipated that the President would issue this unconstitutional block on citizenship, but that does not make it any less disappointing,” said Attorney General Frey in Tuesday’s statement.
“The election did not change the Constitution and legal action is required to remind the President that his oath is to uphold that sacred document, not rewrite it,” said Frey.
Joining Maine in this lawsuit are the states of New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Michigan, Colorado, Delaware, Nevada, Hiawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Vermont, Wisconsin, North Carolina. Also part of the lawsuit are Washington DC and the City of San Francisco.
Click Here to Read Attorney General Frey’s Full Statement
The Trump Administration has since responded to these lawsuits, pushing back against the allegations they put forward as a manifestation of “the Left’s resistance” to his agenda.
“Radical Leftists can either choose to swim against the tide and reject the overwhelming will of the people, or they can get on board and work with President Trump to advance his wildly popular agenda,” Harrison Fields, White House principal deputy press secretary, told Fox News Digital Tuesday.
“These lawsuits are nothing more than an extension of the Left’s resistance – and the Trump administration is ready to face them in court,” Fields added.
And so the United States Department of Justice , under Pam Bondi, is now going to sue you clowns for allowing your ranked choice voting scam which is in violation of the state constitution .
Keep it up Augusta democrats .
What goes around comes around .
Invest in deportation and deliver the USA from taxation slavery and injustice for all!
Fine. All you whiny Dems who don’t want families separated? Too bad then. Send the parents home and put the kids in the “successful” Maine DHHS system.
These Dirty Dems just hate normal, everyday people.
Just send the kids with their parents, no problem.
Janet Mills has instructed Frey to do everything he can to protect those Somali anchor babies in Lewiston .
Janet Mills, referred as the joe biden of maine, issued a pardon for Aaron Nichols who was accused of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl and having unlawful sexual contact with another teen in 2001. Mills served as Nichols’ legal counsel during his early 2000s assault case which is huge conflict of interest.