The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution historically provides citizenship to everyone who is born in the United States or who goes through the legal naturalization process. This amendment also protects citizens from discrimination through equal protection under the law.

Over the centuries, this Amendment has traditionally been interpreted to mean that any person who is physically born in the states, regardless of the circumstances of that birth, will be granted immediate citizenship. That interpretation, however, has currently come under fire after President Donald Trump enacted an executive order disqualifying specific individuals from being granted citizenship simply for being born in the U.S.

This order specifies that individuals who are born in the United States to parents who are illegally in the country are not eligible to receive birthright citizenship.

The executive order goes on to explain that other categories of immigrants will also be excluded from obtaining immediate citizenship. The order directly states that the 14th Amendment “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.” According to the order, the Amendment has always excluded individuals who were physically born in the states but are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

This interpretation, as you can imagine, is being heavily debated. The order is currently on hold because of a lawsuit being brought against the order by 22 states. U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour of Washington state has called out the order as being “blatantly unconstitutional.” Federal Judge Deborah Boardman also placed a second pause on the order on February 5th calling birthright citizenship “a most precious right.”

On February 10th, a third federal Judge, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante, also placed a pause on the order.

U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour expounded on the situation, explaining that the rule of law is not something that should be navigated around or ignored for political or personal gain.

The Trump Administration has declined to comment on the situation so far, but they have filed an appeal to the Seattle-based judge’s block. So far, over nine lawsuits are pending challenging the order.

The Interpretation of the Law

The judicial branch of government was created specifically with the intent of being the agency in charge of interpreting the law, considering the law in various contexts, and applying legal precedents to identify its meaning in relation to specific legal cases.

Since different people can interpret texts differently, it makes sense that the United States has a Supreme Court, the highest court in the nation, which sets legal precedents that all lower courts must follow. The Supreme Court is often in charge of interpreting significant, complex laws.

It’s not clear whether this recent order will wind up in the Supreme Court, but it is seeming more and more likely.

Are you currently undergoing a legal battle where the interpretation of the law is up for debate? If so, then you need a strong legal advocate by your side to help. Schedule an obligation-free consultation to talk to one of our criminal defense attorneys to know about your ongoing legal situation.