About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 1 (April 3, 2026)

handle is hein.crs/goveufp0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Birthright Citizenship: Litigation Status Update April 3, 2026 On April 1, 2026, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara regarding Executive Order 14160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship (E.O. 14160 or the E.O.), which purports to limit who may be recognized as having U.S. citizenship based on having been born in the United States. President Trump issued the E.O. on January 20, 2025. The E.O. sets forth the policy that, 30 days after the issuance of the order, a child born to a mother who is either unlawfully present in the United States or lawfully present in the United States on a temporary basis, and to a father who is not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of' the child's birth, is not to be recognized as a United States citizen and shall not be issued any federal documentation, such as a passport or Social Security number. Plaintiffs in Barbara and other suits challenging the E.O. claim that the order is incompatible with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal law, and cite long-standing Supreme Court precedent and historical practice as supporting their claim. The government contends that persons covered by the E.O. are not entitled to citizenship at birth under either the Fourteenth Amendment or governing statute, and that the executive branch is accordingly authorized to make such policy as in the E.O. This Legal Sidebar provides a brief overview of E.O. 14160 and an update on where lawsuits challenging the E.O.'s legality stand following the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., in which the Court partially stayed nationwide injunctions that would have prevented E.O. 14160 from taking effect. To date, the district and appellate courts that have considered the merits of the constitutional and statutory challenges to E.O. 14160 have determined * the parties that filed the suits have standing, which in some cases was not challenged by the government. In Barbara, the district court certified a class action and found that the individuals within the class have standing. The government concedes that these class members plainly have Article III standing; * the E.O. is unconstitutional as it violates the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause; and * the E.O. is unlawful as it violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)). Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB11414 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress