The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has launched a legal challenge against an executive order issued by President Donald Trump, aimed at ending birthright citizenship, as per the plain language of the 14th Amendment. Legal experts, including Thomas Wolf of the Brennan Center, argue that the executive order is unconstitutional, conflicting with over a century of judicial precedent, including the landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. As noted in an analysis by the Brennan Center, the executive order is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny even before a Supreme Court composition that includes several conservative justices.
The ACLU’s strategy involves filing their lawsuit in the First Circuit—its unique status as the sole circuit without active Republican appointees makes it less vulnerable to politically motivated judicial decisions. This can mitigate the potential influence of judges with aspirations for higher judicial appointments, including to the Supreme Court. The ACLU’s decision to pursue this circuit was followed by a lawsuit from a coalition of state Attorneys General, bolstering the legal challenge against the executive order.
The legal maneuvers by the ACLU aim to preserve the integrity of the 14th Amendment’s provisions and counteract attempts at what some critics describe as a form of legal manipulation introduced to rationalize controversial policy positions. Additional insights are provided by legal commentators, noting the challenges such strategies may pose to the current administration.
While the First Circuit could provide a less biased judicial environment for the ACLU’s case, the ultimate test will come if and when the matter ascends to the Supreme Court. The hope is for a resolution grounded in constitutional tenets rather than political currents, a process many will watch closely given its implications for longstanding interpretations of citizenship under U.S. law.