Key Takeaways
• California Attorney General Bonta leads 19 states challenging Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship in court.
• The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship; Supreme Court precedent reinforces this constitutional protection.
• If enforced, Trump’s order could deny citizenship to 24,500 California-born children annually and trigger loss of fundamental rights.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has spoken out strongly against President Trump’s recent executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States 🇺🇸 to noncitizen parents or people living in the country without lawful status. Bonta describes birthright citizenship as a “bedrock” right, meaning it is a core value of the United States 🇺🇸 legal system. He argues that this right, which comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, cannot be taken away by an executive order or changed without a formal constitutional amendment.
Bonta did not act alone. As reported by VisaVerge.com, he joined with attorneys general from at least 18 other states to take legal action and challenge the order in court. The coalition argues that President Trump’s action tries to get around more than a century of clear Supreme Court rulings that say anyone born on U.S. soil—including children born to noncitizen or undocumented parents—is a citizen at birth. These state leaders believe the President’s actions threaten the rights and futures of thousands of children and families across the United States 🇺🇸.
Birthright Citizenship: Core Principle Rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment
The fight is about a simple question: who counts as a citizen of the United States 🇺🇸? According to the Fourteenth Amendment, any person born or naturalized in the United States 🇺🇸 is automatically a citizen, no matter what their parents’ immigration status may be. The Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship for newly-freed slaves. Since then, courts have read its words to mean that almost everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen—a principle known as “jus soli.” This Latin phrase means “right of the soil.”
The Supreme Court backed this message in an important case in 1898 called United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Here, the court decided that a person born in the United States 🇺🇸 to noncitizen parents was still a full citizen, based only on the fact of birth in the country. This case, often mentioned by the California Attorney General and other leaders, has set the legal standard for more than 125 years.
The Executive Order: President Trump’s Attempt to Change the Rules
In early 2025, President Trump signed an executive order saying only children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of their birth should be granted citizenship. In other words, the President wanted to stop birthright citizenship for babies born in the United States 🇺🇸 to parents who are not U.S. citizens or legal residents.
President Trump and his supporters claim that automatic citizenship for these children “devalues” American citizenship and encourages people to enter the United States 🇺🇸 unlawfully. They argue that the President has the power to act alone and fix what they see as a mistake in how the country understands the Fourteenth Amendment.
But the California Attorney General and his coalition see things very differently. They say an executive order cannot undo a constitutional right, especially one reinforced by decades of Supreme Court decisions. As Attorney General Bonta put it, President Trump is “trying to override both this constitutional provision and more than 125 years of settled Supreme Court precedent.”
Legal Battle: Coalition of States Steps In
Attorney General Bonta and other state leaders quickly moved to challenge the order in federal courts. Together, they wrote in a joint court filing:
“As every court to have considered the policy agrees, the President’s attempt to end birthright citizenship is patently unconstitutional… The President cannot rewrite the Constitution and contradict the Supreme Court’s own holdings with the stroke of a pen.”
The main arguments from the coalition of attorneys general include:
– The executive order directly violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which does not tie citizenship to a parent’s immigration status.
– If enforced, the order would strip citizenship from an estimated 24,500 children every year just in California alone.
– These children would lose their right to work, vote, or receive federal benefits and could even face deportation or become stateless.
– The order would harm all states, especially those with large populations of immigrant families, by making it harder to provide health care, education, and other services that depend on federal funding linked to citizen headcounts.
Impact on Families, Children, and States
What would happen if President Trump’s executive order took effect and birthright citizenship were limited only to children of citizens or green card holders? The California Attorney General has outlined a range of serious problems.
First, tens of thousands of children would immediately lose or be denied U.S. citizenship, despite being born on American soil. In California alone, that number is about 24,500 newborns every year. These children would face sudden barriers to education, jobs, and public benefits.
- They could lose access to basic things like social security numbers, government health programs, and voting rights once grown.
- Some might become “stateless”—that is, legally belonging to no country—if their parents’ home country does not recognize them either.
- Deportation of children born and raised in the United States 🇺🇸 could also become more likely, even if they have never lived in another country.
These risks extend to schools, hospitals, and state programs too. Many government services are tied to citizenship. States like California, with large immigrant populations, could lose federal money for health care, education, and social services if thousands of resident children are suddenly counted as non-citizens.
How Federal Courts Have Responded
When President Trump’s executive order was issued, federal judges acted right away to block it from being enforced. They said that taking away birthright citizenship by presidential order probably goes against the Constitution. During recent hearings at the Supreme Court, many justices did not show any support for the idea of changing birthright citizenship by executive action. Instead, the judges suggested that big changes to the Constitution should go through Congress and the long process of amending the Constitution, not by one person acting alone.
- So far, no judge siding with the President’s position has given a written opinion approving the order.
- Most courts say U.S. citizenship for children born here is a settled question, unless the Constitution is formally changed.
The Supreme Court is still discussing whether the President can make such a major change without a proper constitutional amendment. For now, the executive order remains blocked and cannot be enforced, and birthright citizenship is still the law of the land.
A Clear Legal Divide: Table of Key Differences
It helps to look at the main differences between the positions of the California Attorney General and President Trump. This table shows where they stand:
| Issue | CA AG & Coalition Position | Trump Administration Position |
|---|---|---|
| Basis for Citizenship | Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship (jus soli) | Only children with one parent who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident qualify |
| How the Rule Should Be Changed | Only by changing the Constitution | The President can change it through Executive Order |
| Effect if Change Enforced | Tens of thousands lose or are denied citizenship | Stops “automatic” citizenship for some, claims to protect “value” of being a citizen |
| Courts and Judges’ Opinions | Unconstitutional, blocked by courts | Appealed court blocks, but facing doubt in the courts |
This split shows what’s at stake—for the Constitution, for immigrant families, and for how the United States 🇺🇸 decides who belongs.
The Fourteenth Amendment: A Closer Look
The Fourteenth Amendment is part of the Constitution, passed in 1868, just after the Civil War. Its first sentence says:
“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.”
This means if you are born in the United States 🇺🇸, you are a citizen—period. The only exceptions are children of foreign diplomats or occupying armies, which is a very small group. The idea behind this rule was to prevent any government leader from picking and choosing who could be a citizen and who could not.
For over a hundred years, the Supreme Court has agreed with this reading of the law. The key 1898 case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, has been used as the guide whenever courts face questions about birthright citizenship. That’s why the California Attorney General, Rob Bonta, and many others insist that only a new constitutional amendment can change this rule.
Political and Social Impacts
Efforts to end or change birthright citizenship have always sparked big debates in the United States 🇺🇸. Supporters of birthright citizenship say it is a fair, clear, and easy-to-understand rule. It keeps the country from discriminating based on who your parents are or what papers they have.
Opponents, including President Trump, claim the rule has led to “birth tourism” (where people come to the United States 🇺🇸 just to give birth) and encourages people to try to enter or stay in the country unlawfully. But judges and legal experts point out that changing this rule could have lasting effects:
– Children born in the United States 🇺🇸 could become second-class citizens or even have no citizenship at all.
– Deciding citizenship based on parentage would move away from more than 150 years of American tradition and could create confusion for schools, hospitals, and other services.
The Role of State Leaders
Rob Bonta, the California Attorney General, plays a leading part in this fight because California has one of the largest immigrant populations in the country. The decisions made about birthright citizenship in Washington, D.C., affect more families, schools, and businesses in California than almost any other state. That’s why California has been at the front of legal battles to defend the Fourteenth Amendment and the right of citizenship for all children born in the United States 🇺🇸.
Other attorneys general joined Bonta because they are worried that changing birthright citizenship could also hurt their own states, especially when it comes to getting federal funds and meeting the needs of families who have lived in the United States 🇺🇸 for years.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court will soon decide whether the President can limit citizenship rights with an executive order, or if only a formal constitutional amendment could do so. If the Court rules against the executive order, birthright citizenship will remain unchanged. But if they side with the President, it could change not just the lives of thousands of children and families, but also the future of immigration in the United States 🇺🇸.
Both sides agree that this case is about something bigger than just legal rules—it is about the identity and values of the United States 🇺🇸 as a country of immigrants and equal rights. To follow updates and see the official statement from California’s attorney general, you can visit the California Department of Justice Newsroom.
Summary
To sum up:
– The California Attorney General argues that birthright citizenship is a deep part of U.S. history and law, based on the Fourteenth Amendment.
– President Trump’s executive order tried to change this, only allowing children of citizens or green card holders to become citizens at birth.
– Courts have blocked the order, saying only a constitutional amendment can make such a big change.
– If the order were enforced, thousands of children, especially in states like California, would lose their rights as citizens.
– The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision will shape not only who gets to be a citizen, but also how the United States 🇺🇸 defines itself as a nation.
For more detailed information about the Fourteenth Amendment and birthright citizenship, the official Congress.gov page on the U.S. Constitution offers easy-to-read legal background.
The discussion shines a light on the ongoing role of the California Attorney General and state leaders in defending constitutional rights. The outcome will signal how the balance between presidential power, constitutional law, and the rights of all people born in the United States 🇺🇸 will be shaped for generations to come.
Learn Today
Birthright Citizenship → A legal right ensuring anyone born in the U.S. becomes a citizen, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Fourteenth Amendment → An amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing citizenship to individuals born or naturalized in the United States.
Executive Order → A directive issued by the President that has the force of law, often used to manage operations in the federal government.
Jus Soli → A Latin term meaning ‘right of the soil,’ referring to citizenship granted based on birthplace.
Stateless → A legal status where a person is not recognized as a citizen by any country, lacking nationality and related protections.
This Article in a Nutshell
California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta is spearheading a legal coalition challenging President Trump’s 2025 executive order, which aims to end birthright citizenship for children of noncitizen parents. Supported by Supreme Court precedent and the Fourteenth Amendment, states argue that only a constitutional amendment—not an executive order—can change this foundational right.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• U.S. citizenship could fast-track for wealthy with $5 million gold visa
• DHS weighs reality television show awarding U.S. citizenship to winner
• Trump Says Birthright Citizenship is for “Babies of Slaves”
• Supreme Court Stalls on Birthright Citizenship Showdown
• How birthright citizenship shapes legal status in the United States
