Lawsuit Challenges President's New Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship

Why it matters locally: Changes to birthright citizenship policies, if implemented, could affect the demographics and social services across Arizona, including communities with significant immigrant populations.

---

WASHINGTON – Legal representatives for plaintiffs who previously challenged President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship policies have returned to federal court in New Hampshire. Five days after President Trump signed a new executive order, "Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," these attorneys filed a motion on Tuesday morning. The American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups filed the motion. They asked U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante to clarify that the new order goes beyond the narrow exception for foreign diplomats. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this exception in its June 30 decision in *Trump v. Barbara*. President Trump's initial executive order in 2025 aimed to restrict automatic U.S. citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors. The Supreme Court subsequently ruled that this 2025 order violated the Constitution. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. He stated the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause broadly grants citizenship to anyone "born … in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." He noted exceptions for "the children of foreign ministers and members of" certain "19th-century Indian tribes." Following the court's decision, President Trump indicated a plan to ask the justices to reconsider their ruling. The deadline for this passed in late July, and the Supreme Court issued a final judgment in the case. On August 6, President Trump signed the new executive order. He also signed a second order, "Ending Birth Tourism." This order addresses what the administration has characterized as travel by pregnant women to the United States to give birth, resulting in U.S. citizenship for their children. The new birthright citizenship order applies to various groups. These include children of ambassadors, referred to as "foreign ministers." It also includes children of other foreign citizens in the U.S., such as employees at foreign embassies, foreign government employees in their official capacity, and employees of international organizations like the United Nations and the World Bank. The order also excludes children whose parent was designated an "alien enemy" under federal laws. Furthermore, the order applies to children of parents who "engage[d] in a commercial transaction to ensure that the person’s mother is present in the United States, or a territory of the United States, to give birth." It also applies to children born in U.S. territories or territorial waters "where citizenship is not conferred by Federal statute." Under current federal law, babies born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands receive U.S. citizenship. Babies born in American Samoa do not. A bill introduced in Congress proposes to end birthright citizenship in these territories starting January 1, 2027. The challengers in *Trump v. Barbara* asked Judge Laplante to block this new order. They wrote that the Supreme Court rejected attempts to create new exceptions for children of undocumented immigrants or temporary residents. The challengers stated the Supreme Court "reaffirmed … that ‘the Citizenship Clause … granted citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States,’ save only ‘the “children of ambassadors” and other representatives of foreign sovereigns’ along with Native American Tribal members." They concluded that this point "should have been the end of this issue." The challengers also addressed arguments that the August 6 order should stand because it includes some groups for whom the president can legally deny citizenship, such as children of ambassadors. They stated the president cannot create exceptions to the citizenship clause. They noted that the August 6 order's exceptions apply more broadly than the narrow exception for ambassadors, extending to children of other foreign nationals at embassies who lack full diplomatic immunity, and children of individuals designated as "alien enemies." The challengers asserted, "If the President issues 100 orders seeking to create new exceptions to the sacred guarantee of the Citizenship Clause, all 100 will be equally illegal." They also maintained that the court is not obligated to allow continued challenges to this constitutional principle or issue an ongoing series of orders preventing such executive orders from taking effect.