The executive order signed by President Donald Trump on his first day back in office aims to terminate birthright citizenship, a principle allowing children born on U.S. soil to automatically gain citizenship. This controversial decree has already ignited numerous legal challenges from various advocacy groups and states.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) swiftly filed a lawsuit claiming that Trump's order violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This constitutional provision has been a cornerstone of American citizenship since its ratification in 1868, following the Civil War.

Trump's executive order specifically targets children born in the U.S. to parents who are not lawful permanent residents or U.S. citizens, suggesting that their birthright to citizenship will no longer be recognized if one or both parents are undocumented or on temporary visas. “Denying citizenship to U.S.-born children is not only unconstitutional—it's also a reckless and ruthless repudiation of American values,” stated ACLU director Anthony D. Romero in a released statement.

In addition to the ACLU, a coalition of 22 Democrat-led states and two major cities, including Washington, D.C., have initiated their own legal challenges against the executive order. They argue that Trump’s move is a blatant overreach of presidential powers that undermines a foundational American principle. “President Trump now seeks to abrogate this well-established and longstanding Constitutional principle by executive fiat,” the lawsuit asserts, highlighting the potential for a dangerous precedent.

As stated in the USA Today, California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta emphasized that Trump’s order reflected an ominous tone for his new term, suggesting a systematic attempt to reshape what it means to be American.

The Trump administration's rationale hinges on claims of curbing immigration and preventing 'birth tourism,' although legal scholars largely reject these arguments as misinterpretations of the 14th Amendment. Experts, including Oleg Nekritin, argue that the courts will likely strike down the executive order due to its inherent conflict with the Constitution.

Further complicating this legal landscape, a group of Republican and conservative legal thinkers has expressed skepticism regarding the order's viability, raising concerns about the long-term constitutional implications and potential for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn established precedents, particularly the ruling from United States v. Wong Kim Ark that has historically affirmed birthright citizenship.

The legal challenges are anticipated to culminate in the Supreme Court, given the significance and urgency of the constitutional issues at play. As the courts prepare to tackle this divisive issue, the future of birthright citizenship hangs in the balance, alongside the broader national discourse on immigration policy.

For more information on this developing story, visit USA Today.