Executive Order 14160 of January 20, 2025, Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship. Read:

• Executive Order 14160 on whitehouse.gov
• Executive Order 14160 as published in the Federal Register at 90 FR 8449 (January 29, 2025)

Status: Subject to nationwide preliminary injunctions preventing its implementation.

Summary

Executive Order 14160, signed on January 20, 2025, seeks to redefine U.S. birthright citizenship by excluding children born in the United States to mothers who are either unlawfully present or legally present but on temporary status (such as tourist or student visas), unless the father is either a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order directs federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents to individuals born under these circumstances after February 19, 2025, and requires relevant departments to issue implementation guidance within 30 days. The executive order cites the Fourteenth Amendment's language about persons "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as the constitutional basis for this policy change, arguing that these categories of births have never been entitled to automatic citizenship.

"Birthright citizenship" in the United States is established by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

For background on citizenship at birth and the 14th Amendment see on Congress.gov's Constitution Annotated:

• Amdt14.S1.1.1 Historical Background on Citizenship Clause
• Amdt14.S1.1.2 Citizenship Clause Doctrine
• Amdt14.S1.1.3 Loss of Citizenship

Executive Order 14160, though, tells federal agencies to not recognize birthright citizenship of any individual born after 30 days from when the executive order was signed:

"(1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or

(2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth."

Litigation

Arguing that it violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, numerous states and parties filed at least six lawsuits to halt Executive Order 14160. See Guttentag, Immigration Policy Tracking Project which is tracking this and other litigation. EO 14160 is currently subject to several district court nationwide preliminary injunctions preventing its implementation. The Trump-Vance administration filed motions in U.S. courts of appeal to stay the district courts' orders, but those courts of appeal have denied the government's motions to stay. On March 13, 2025 the Trump-Vance administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of the preliminary injunctions .

Specific Cases with Orders Blocking Implementation

State of Washington et al v. Trump et al. On January 21, 2025 the States of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against Executive Order 14160.

• Case citation: State of Washington et al v. Trump et al, No. 2:25-cv-00127, Judge John C. Coughenour presiding.
  • See the CourtListener record and read the complaint, the preliminary injunction order, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appea'ls order denying the Government's motion for a stay of the injunction.
  • Read the Government's application to the Supreme Court for a partial stay of the district court's injunction.

CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al. On January 21, 2025, CASA of Maryland filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Executive Order 14160.

• Case citation: CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al, No. 8:25-cv-00201 (D. Md. 2025). Judge Deborah L. Boardman presiding.
  • See CourtListener record and read the complaint, the preliminary injunction order, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appea'ls order denying the Government's motion for a stay of the injunction.
  • Read the Government's application to the Supreme Court for a partial stay of the district court's injunction.

State of New Jersey et al v. Trump et al. Plaintiffs: State of New Jersey, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, District of Columbia, State of Hawai‘i, State of Maine, State of Maryland, Attorney General Dana Nessel for the People of Michigan, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of New York, State of North Carolina, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Wisconsin, City & County of San Francisco.

• Case citation: State of New Jersey et al v. Trump et al, 1:25-cv-10139, (D. Mass. Jan 21, 2025)
  • See CourtListener record and read the complaint, the preliminary injunction order, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appea'ls order denying the Government's motion for a stay of the injunction.
  • Read the Government's application to the Supreme Court for a partial stay of the district court's injunction.