Trump’s birthright citizenship ban: Pregnant women file federal lawsuit to overturn
A group of pregnant women in Maryland, along with a dozen others from across the country, have filed a federal lawsuit in Maryland challenging President Donald Trump's executive order revoking birthright citizenship.
The lawsuit takes aim at the executive order’s reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has guaranteed citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil for over a century.
A mother's fight to protect citizenship rights for US-born babies
The backstory:
Plaintiff Monica, a three-month pregnant asylum seeker from Venezuela, argues that the policy leaves their children in legal limbo.
Monica and her partner both live in South Carolina with Temporary Protected Status. They fled political persecution in Venezuela.
Under the previous interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Monica’s child, expected to be born in the U.S., would have been granted citizenship.
Now, she says the uncertainty surrounding her child’s status is overwhelming.
"We wanted to be here in the United States. We wanted to be alive, and we wanted to be safe," said Leidy Perez, a member of the legal team who was acting as an interpreter for Monica during her interview. "I want to give my baby a good life, love, education, and a home. But where is he going to be from? He should be from the place where he was born."
14th Amendment dispute sparks statelessness concerns
Big picture view:
The 14th Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
For over a century, the Supreme Court has upheld this principle, barring exceptions for children of diplomats or members of invading armies.
However, Trump’s executive order takes a different approach, asserting that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to political allegiance to the U.S.
Department of Justice lawyers argue that the 14th Amendment’s historical context, along with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, supports their interpretation.
Critics, including Monica’s legal team, warn that this interpretation could leave children born to asylum seekers and other immigrants stateless. Many asylum seekers cannot claim citizenship from their home country due to fear of persecution.
Paul Kamenar of the National Legal and Policy Center, supporting Trump’s position, compared these cases to children of diplomats.
"They had their children here. They're not considered citizens of the United States. Wait a minute, they should be, right? Because it says so in the constitutional amendment," Kamenar said. "That's because they owe their allegiance to the country which they are representing. So the argument being made is people who are here illegally from Mexico, they owe their allegiance to Mexico instead of the United States."
For Monica and the other plaintiffs, the stakes are deeply personal.
"I want to give my baby a good life. I want to give him love. I want to give him an education and a home, and my baby will have all of that. But we just have to know where is he going to be from. Because he should be from the place where he was born."