The Trump administration's birthright citizenship order: Blatantly unconstitutional – or not ?

The second Trump administration has sought through the use of executive orders to fashion significant changes to federal government policies in many areas. While many of those Orders raise no significant constitutional issues, some appear to overstep long-recognised constitutional boundaries. Perhaps the most contentious of the Orders is the Trump administration's attempt to alter understandings of the so-called ‘birthright citizenship’ clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Order has widely been regarded as what one federal judge termed ‘blatantly unconstitutional’. This paper suggests that characterisation is overly simplistic, and that a close reading of the (very little) Supreme Court authority on the point would suggest that the current Supreme Court could credibly construe the citizenship clause in a fashion which gives the Trump administration much of the policy outcome which it is seeking, albeit not through the interpretive methodology that one would expect the Court's conservative majority would instinctively wish to use.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Common Law World Review
Published
2026-01-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/14737795251410289
Primary Topic
Law, Rights, and Freedoms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Trump administration's birthright citizenship order: Blatantly unconstitutional – or not ?

Ian Loveland
Common Law World Review
Law, Rights, and Freedoms
article

The Trump administration's birthright citizenship order: Blatantly unconstitutional – or not ?

Ian Loveland
article en

Abstract

The second Trump administration has sought through the use of executive orders to fashion significant changes to federal government policies in many areas. While many of those Orders raise no significant constitutional issues, some appear to overstep long-recognised constitutional boundaries. Perhaps the most contentious of the Orders is the Trump administration's attempt to alter understandings of the so-called ‘birthright citizenship’ clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Order has widely been regarded as what one federal judge termed ‘blatantly unconstitutional’. This paper suggests that characterisation is overly simplistic, and that a close reading of the (very little) Supreme Court authority on the point would suggest that the current Supreme Court could credibly construe the citizenship clause in a fashion which gives the Trump administration much of the policy outcome which it is seeking, albeit not through the interpretive methodology that one would expect the Court's conservative majority would instinctively wish to use.

Common Law World ReviewVol. 55(1)
St George's, University of London (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 92%
Law, Rights, and Freedoms
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

The Trump administration's birthright citizenship order: Blatantly unconstitutional – or not ? — Ian Loveland · Common Law World Review (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS