In Trump's Court

The slew of litigation filed by states' attorneys in the USA challenging Trump's executive orders on citizenship, federal funding and agency restructuring speaks to a nation at a critical constitutional juncture

- Avantika Mehta

On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump assumed office as President of the United States. Within a day, he signed a series of executive orders, prompting state attorneys to scramble in a legal offensive that could redefine the US Constitution.

At the heart of the USA’s current legal turmoil is Executive Order (EO) 14160. It strips citizenship from American-born children of undocumented immigrants, including those born to parents on temporary US visas. This marks a departure from established law, which explicitly states that a person is naturalised as a US citizen if “the person is born in the United States.” Within hours of Trump signing the order, attorneys general from Washington, New Jersey, Arizona and Oregon filed suits, arguing that the order “flagrantly violates the 14th Amendment” of the US Constitution.

State lawyers argued that Trump’s attempt to redefine who is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” at birth is essentially an effort by the Executive to rewrite core tenets of US law. They warned that if EO14160 was allowed to stand, it could have dire consequences for federal funding and Social Security.

In its lawsuit against EO14160, the Brazilian Worker Centre Inc. and Lawyers for Civil Rights argued that Trump’s order “treats the targeted citizens as a subordinate caste of native-born Americans, entitled to fewer rights, benefits and entitlements than other Americans due to their parents’ alienage,” adding that it “violates their right to equal protection”.

Federal courts across the US also pushed back. In a highly publicised win against EO14160, Boston District Court Judge Leo Sorokin granted a preliminary injunction blocking the order on February 13. In his ruling, Sorokin stated that the order was inconsistent with the US Constitution, which “confers birthright citizenship broadly.” He became the fourth federal judge to block EO14160.