Which constitutional amendments have legal experts accused Donald Trump of violating?
Executive summary
Legal experts and multiple courts have accused President Donald Trump’s January 20, 2025 executive order on birthright citizenship of violating the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment; lower courts blocked the order as contrary to the 14th Amendment and to federal statute, and the Supreme Court has agreed to decide the dispute [1] [2]. Beyond birthright-citizenship challenges, analysts and advocacy groups have alleged violations or likely violations of other constitutional provisions — including First, Fourth and Article I-related claims tied to wide-ranging executive actions — though primary reporting and trackers cited here focus most heavily on the Fourteenth Amendment dispute [3] [4] [5].
1. The central accusation: trampling the 14th Amendment
The clearest, repeatedly litigated claim from legal experts and challengers is that Trump’s order to restrict birthright citizenship contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause; multiple federal courts found the order “violated the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment” and lower courts issued injunctions on that basis before the Supreme Court took the case [6] [7] [1]. Plaintiffs and amici contend the 1868 text — “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — has long been read to confer near‑universal birthright citizenship and that Trump’s directive attempts to rewrite that constitutional guarantee [8] [6].
2. Where courts and scholars anchor the 14th Amendment challenge
Litigants point to longstanding Supreme Court precedent — most prominently United States v. Wong Kim Ark — and to statutory codification in the Immigration and Nationality Act as legal ballast against the administration’s order; Reuters and SCOTUSblog both report challengers citing that precedent as central to their argument that the order conflicts with constitutional text and settled case law [1] [6]. The 9th Circuit and other federal courts have framed the order as inconsistent with those precedents, producing unanimous or divided rulings that it is unconstitutional [7] [6].
3. Other constitutional claims flagged by experts and trackers
Beyond the birthright issue, legal trackers and advocacy organizations catalog lawsuits alleging additional constitutional problems: challenges invoking the First Amendment (free speech and association), due process protections, and federal statutory constraints such as the Administrative Procedure Act; Just Security’s litigation tracker and other compilations document suits asserting violations tied to broad immigration and regulatory changes [3]. Commentary and partisan outlets also accuse the administration of infringing Fourth Amendment privacy protections and Article I separation-of-powers limits when it withholds or redirects funds — though those claims are framed within reports and analyses rather than as a single, unified court finding in the sources provided here [4] [5].
4. The political and institutional context behind the legal claims
Sources show that critics — from civil rights groups like the ACLU to state attorneys general and immigrant-rights nonprofits — view the order as part of a broader pattern of aggressive executive actions that courts, Congress and watchdogs are testing in real time; those groups argue the order is not an isolated legal quirk but a deliberate attempt to reshape constitutional interpretation and immigration policy [2] [8]. Congressional and civic trackers have compiled dozens of legal challenges to a range of executive moves, signalling sustained institutional friction over where presidential authority ends and constitutional or statutory limits begin [3] [9].
5. What the sources do not say (limits of current reporting)
Available sources focus overwhelmingly on the Fourteenth Amendment birthright-citizenship fight; they catalogue other lawsuits and claims (First, Fourth Amendment and Article I concerns) but do not consolidate a definitive list of constitutional amendments that legal experts universally accuse Trump of violating. Specific court rulings cited in these sources concentrate on the 14th Amendment dispute and on statutory or administrative-law violations, not a single comprehensive, court‑validated roster of all alleged constitutional breaches [1] [3] [5].
6. Competing viewpoints and where resolution will come
Supporters of the administration argue (as referenced in commentary) that the text and history of the 14th Amendment could admit a narrower reading, and The Conversation notes that a “living Constitution” versus originalist interpretive split shapes whether the administration’s move is deemed lawful — a debate the Supreme Court will ultimately resolve [10]. The Supreme Court’s agreement to hear the case makes it the decisive forum for interpreting the relevant constitutional language and settling whether the executive action stands [1] [6].
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the supplied reporting and trackers; available sources do not present an exhaustive catalogue of every constitutional allegation leveled by all legal scholars, nor do they report a final judicial resolution beyond the Supreme Court’s agreement to hear the 14th Amendment challenge [1] [6] [3].