By American Bar Association
The American Bar Association has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the argument that Executive Order 14,160 violates the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment by declaring that U.S. citizenship “does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States” if, at the time of birth, the child’s father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident and the mother’s presence in the U.S. is unlawful or lawful but temporary.
The brief discusses the ABA’s policy supporting the long-established understanding of the birthright citizenship clause as granting citizenship to any person born in the United States. It then explains how elimination of birthright citizenship would unsettle the law in innumerable areas, forcing attorneys to advise clients under fragmented and indeterminate citizenship-verification regimes. The brief then demonstrates that the executive order’s destabilization of citizenship would reverberate far beyond immigration law. It would adversely affect many areas of the legal system that provide benefits and rights to individuals, including access to civil litigation in federal courts, public benefits and healthcare, and the issuance of government identification. These legal regimes rely on the settled rule of birthright citizenship to operate through clear, administrable standards. Replacing that rule would force attorneys across practice areas to advise clients under doubt about their most basic legal status.
Under current law, a birth certificate generally suffices to prove citizenship. Under the executive order, however, lawyers would need to determine matters such as whether a person’s birthdate falls before or after the order’s effective date, the precise immigration or citizenship status of both parents at the time of birth, and also how to treat complicated or common circumstances — such as assisted reproduction, adoption, unknown or deceased fathers, or same-sex couples — for which the order offers no guidance. Lawyers would also need to determine how to assemble and present secondary evidence if standard documents are unavailable. Given that the United States lacks a centralized birth registry and that state birth certificates rarely record parental immigration status, proof would often be difficult or impossible to obtain. Millions of Americans lack ready access to documentation proving citizenship. The ABA warns that this uncertainty could render some individuals effectively stateless and would invite administrative inconsistency or discrimination.
The ABA brief concludes that citizenship is a foundational legal fact “woven into the great fabric” of American law. The 14th Amendment’s bright-line rule was designed to prevent precisely the uncertainty and political manipulation the executive order would introduce. By replacing an automatic constitutional guarantee with a shifting, administratively mediated status, the executive order would burden courts, agencies, attorneys and millions of native-born Americans. The ABA urges affirmance of the lower court’s judgment invalidating the executive order and the preservation of the settled rule that birth in the United States confers citizenship.
The law firm of Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP filed the brief pro bono on behalf of the ABA.
(https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2026/03/aba-amicus-brief-birthright-citizenship/)
The American Bar Association has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the argument that Executive Order 14,160 violates the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment by declaring that U.S. citizenship “does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States” if, at the time of birth, the child’s father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident and the mother’s presence in the U.S. is unlawful or lawful but temporary.
The brief discusses the ABA’s policy supporting the long-established understanding of the birthright citizenship clause as granting citizenship to any person born in the United States. It then explains how elimination of birthright citizenship would unsettle the law in innumerable areas, forcing attorneys to advise clients under fragmented and indeterminate citizenship-verification regimes. The brief then demonstrates that the executive order’s destabilization of citizenship would reverberate far beyond immigration law. It would adversely affect many areas of the legal system that provide benefits and rights to individuals, including access to civil litigation in federal courts, public benefits and healthcare, and the issuance of government identification. These legal regimes rely on the settled rule of birthright citizenship to operate through clear, administrable standards. Replacing that rule would force attorneys across practice areas to advise clients under doubt about their most basic legal status.
Under current law, a birth certificate generally suffices to prove citizenship. Under the executive order, however, lawyers would need to determine matters such as whether a person’s birthdate falls before or after the order’s effective date, the precise immigration or citizenship status of both parents at the time of birth, and also how to treat complicated or common circumstances — such as assisted reproduction, adoption, unknown or deceased fathers, or same-sex couples — for which the order offers no guidance. Lawyers would also need to determine how to assemble and present secondary evidence if standard documents are unavailable. Given that the United States lacks a centralized birth registry and that state birth certificates rarely record parental immigration status, proof would often be difficult or impossible to obtain. Millions of Americans lack ready access to documentation proving citizenship. The ABA warns that this uncertainty could render some individuals effectively stateless and would invite administrative inconsistency or discrimination.
The ABA brief concludes that citizenship is a foundational legal fact “woven into the great fabric” of American law. The 14th Amendment’s bright-line rule was designed to prevent precisely the uncertainty and political manipulation the executive order would introduce. By replacing an automatic constitutional guarantee with a shifting, administratively mediated status, the executive order would burden courts, agencies, attorneys and millions of native-born Americans. The ABA urges affirmance of the lower court’s judgment invalidating the executive order and the preservation of the settled rule that birth in the United States confers citizenship.
The law firm of Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP filed the brief pro bono on behalf of the ABA.
(https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2026/03/aba-amicus-brief-birthright-citizenship/)
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
