Rules for Thee But Not For Me: How Trump Is Trying to Circumvent the Constitution and Why It Is Illegal

This article examines the responses to Executive Order 14160, a move aimed at redefining birthright citizenship by making it conditional on the lawful status of parents. Focusing on the State of Washington et al. v. Trump et al. (25-807), this article explores how federal courts have addressed the constitutional challenges raised by the order. The implications of this are important: if upheld, this executive order would allow the president to ignore a historic precedent set by the judiciary and would change the United States' long-held stance that everyone is born a citizen regardless of their parent's citizenship status.

Executive Order 14160 was signed by President Trump on the first day of his second term on January 20th, 2025 [1]. Titled “PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP,” it attempts to prohibit any federal agency from accepting, recognizing, or issuing citizenship to individuals born from parents who were not citizens at the time of birth. In response, private interest groups and several states filed lawsuits challenging its constitutionality. The legal ramifications would be significant and inconsistent with nearly 100 years of precedent set by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) [2]. If this executive order went into effect, it would render some children stateless, separate children from their parents due to deportation, and violate their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

In State of Washington v. Trump (2025), the State of Washington filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington challenging the Executive Order. The State’s primary argument is that the order unlawfully redefines birthright citizenship in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing Wong Kim Ark, which established that children born in the United States to undocumented parents are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment, the State contends that the Executive Order contradicts this precedent. In its motion for a preliminary injunction, Washington argues that it would suffer irreparable economic harm due to the loss of federal funds to which it is legally entitled and asserts a strong likelihood of success on the merits, given that the order violates Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, the President of the United States, in his role as the chief of the executive branch, does not have the authority to change a law that is left up to Congress, and even if he did, it would violate the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [3].

In response, the administration argued that Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to children born to undocumented immigrants because they are not “subject” to the laws of the United States of America [4]. 

The defendant's central argument was that the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause—granting citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"—has been historically misinterpreted. They contended that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents,  they used Elk v. Wilkins (1884) to substantiate their claim [5].  This case found that Native Americans who had not fully integrated into U.S. society were not automatically granted citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. This case was used to argue that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" implies a complete allegiance to the United States, thereby excluding certain groups from automatic citizenship. 

The Court granted the State a preliminary injunction, holding that they were likely to succeed on the merits; this ruling was based on Wong Kim Ark. The Court also held that the State was able to show irreparable harm if this order were to go into effect and dismissed the administration's argument that the plaintiff lacked standing [5].

In State of Washington v. Trump (2025), the Court relied on United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) to evaluate the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. They rejected the administration’s argument that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to exclude children of undocumented immigrants or individuals without lawful status. Instead, they held that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to apply broadly, granting citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the United States, except those explicitly exempted, such as children of foreign diplomats, and that the executive branch lacks unilateral authority to redefine constitutional citizenship requirements [5]. 

As this case moves forward in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and potentially the Supreme Court, it raises an important question about the Citizenship Clause and whether the historical ruling from Wong Kim Ark v. the U.S. will still apply. It also questions the President's power: even if the administration's arguments are upheld, can the President change a historical precedent set by the courts? This case matters to the public because nearly 11 million undocumented people live in the United States [6]. The outcome could significantly impact their children, making some stateless, denying them government benefits, and putting children at risk of deportation. It would also complicate our already complex immigration system.

Sources:

1. Exec. Order No. 14,160 (2025).
2. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
3. Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction, State of Washington et al. v. Trump et al., No. 2:25-cv-00127 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 21, 2025).
4. State of Washington v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-00127-JCC (W.D. Wash. Jan. 23, 2025).
5. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).
6. Jeffrey S. Passel & Jens Manuel Krogstad, What We Know About Unauthorized Immigrants Living in the U.S., PEW RESEARCH CTR. (July 22, 2024), https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/.