The Trump admin wasted no time to sign executive orders. Now the court battles have begun.
And a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on President Trump is about to change everything.
Legal Expert Alan Dershowitz Discusses Potential Challenges to Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship
Attorney Alan Dershowitz raised key legal questions on Monday, highlighting how the U.S. Supreme Court might approach challenges to President Donald Trump’s recent executive order on birthright citizenship. The executive order, signed by Trump shortly after his inauguration, aims to tighten the rules surrounding citizenship for those born on U.S. soil. This move has sparked legal battles, with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and various states, including those led by former Vice President Kamala Harris, challenging its legality.
In his comments during an episode of “The Dershow,” Dershowitz suggested that one critical legal principle could play a decisive role in whether the executive order survives scrutiny in the courts. He pointed to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was originally adopted to grant citizenship to freed slaves after the Civil War. According to Dershowitz, the amendment’s wording has been the subject of debate and could be a significant factor in the ongoing legal challenges.
“The amendment is badly written, and it gives rise to debate. The debate often takes on a partisan edge, but both parts of the amendment have to be considered,” Dershowitz explained. “You can’t just consider the words in the amendment and eliminate half of them, even if they become anachronistic. That’s the same thing about the 14th Amendment and the provision about being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Dershowitz rightly points out the complications that come with interpreting the 14th Amendment in this issue of birthright citizenship, especially in light of modern-day challenges. Dershowitz noted that legal interpretations of this provision, which stipulates that anyone “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is entitled to birthright citizenship, will likely continue to evolve in the courts. He further pointed out that while an executive order like Trump’s may be issued, it is not permanent and can be revoked by future administrations.
“There’s going to be debates,” Dershowitz said. “The president issued an order, an executive order. Executive orders only last as long as the presidency lasts and can be revoked upon the next presidency, but we’ll see what happens.”
The legal challenges to Trump’s executive order have already resulted in at least one district judge blocking its implementation. Dershowitz highlighted that the lawsuits, which are primarily brought by state attorneys general, raise an important question: who has standing to challenge the president’s statement that birthright citizenship should no longer be automatically granted?
“It’s already been challenged in court, I think in two courts, and they both said, ‘No, it’s unconstitutional,’” Dershowitz noted. “One of the issues, of course, in the case is standing. Who has standing to challenge a statement by the president that says birthright citizenship is not gonna be allowed? Anybody who’s been denied citizenship who was born here would have standing clearly, but do attorneys general of states have standing? Well, that’s a question that the Supreme Court will probably eventually have to decide.”
In legal terms, “standing” refers to the requirement that a party filing a lawsuit must have a direct and substantial connection to the law or action they are challenging. For example, individuals who are denied citizenship under the executive order might have a clear case for standing, while state officials could face more difficulty in proving their stake in the matter.
Dershowitz also emphasized the potential role of Congress in addressing the issues raised by the 14th Amendment. While the Constitution itself does not define who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, Congress has the authority to clarify these terms through legislation.
“Right now, it comes to the courts with not a particularly strong record on behalf of the presidency, because the words of the Constitution stand, and there’s been no congressional legislation,” he explained. “But what if Congress passed a law saying the following people are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? The 14th Amendment doesn’t define who is subject to the jurisdiction. The United States just says subject to the jurisdiction?”
Dershowitz suggested that if Congress were to pass a law specifying which individuals are not considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., it could have a significant impact on how the courts interpret the 14th Amendment. He presented a hypothetical scenario in which a law might exclude children born to non-legally present parents from automatic citizenship, suggesting that such laws could shift the legal landscape.
“What if they pass a law saying people born to non-legally present people in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? They are subject to the jurisdiction of the countries of their parents,” he said. “Some such laws have been passed.”
Dershowitz also pointed out that children born to foreign diplomats in the United States are not automatically granted citizenship, even though they are born on U.S. soil. This precedent, he argued, supports the idea that the interpretation of birthright citizenship is not as straightforward as it may seem.
Any breaking news on the birthright citizenship fight between the Trump administration and the courts will be right here on The Federalist Wire.
