Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Have courts found that Donald Trump or his allies violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses?
Executive summary
Federal courts and state courts have repeatedly reviewed claims that Donald Trump or his allies violated provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, but outcomes differ by clause and case type: multiple federal judges enjoined or described as likely unconstitutional President Trump’s 2025 executive order to end birthright citizenship under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and state and lower courts have entertained—and in some instances applied—Section 3 disqualification challenges against Trump; the Supreme Court has weighed in on both tracks, narrowing some state-level actions (Trump v. Anderson) while also accepting and ruling on emergency applications about the citizenship executive order [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention every court decision nationwide; below I summarize the principal judicial findings, competing views, and the limits of current reporting [4] [5].
1. Courts blocked the 2025 executive order on birthright citizenship — judges said it likely conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment
Several federal trial judges and appellate panels issued injunctions or found the executive order unlawful as inconsistent with the Citizenship Clause. For example, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in Barbara v. Trump issued a preliminary injunction concluding the order likely “contradicts the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the century-old untouched precedent that interprets it” [1]. Other district judges granted nationwide preliminary relief, with one judge saying the order “conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment, contradicts 125-year old binding Supreme Court precedent and runs counter to our nation's 250-year history of citizenship by birth” [4]. A divided Ninth Circuit panel likewise ruled the order “is invalid because it contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment” [1].
2. The Supreme Court became involved on an emergency basis — but did not uniformly resolve all constitutional questions
The Supreme Court received emergency applications and ultimately issued an opinion in cases tied to the executive order (see the Court’s docketed opinion in Trump's challenge, No. 24A884). The Court’s orders and opinions in June 2025 addressed immediate requests for stays or relief but the applications “do not raise—and thus we do not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates” the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause in the merits sense, indicating limited resolution on the constitutional merits at that stage [2]. That means lower-court findings of likely unconstitutionality remained central to ongoing litigation [2].
3. The Trump administration has urged the Supreme Court to decide birthright citizenship — framing the Fourteenth Amendment differently
The administration sought Supreme Court review, with Solicitor General filings characterizing the traditional understanding of the Citizenship Clause as mistaken and urging reconsideration; the White House and the administration framed the policy as consistent with a narrower reading of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and asked the justices to hear the issue [1] [6]. The executive branch’s public materials reiterate that position and argue statutory and historical support for a different interpretation [6] [7].
4. Separate litigation used Section 3 (the “insurrection” clause) to try to disqualify Trump—courts split and the Supreme Court limited some state actions
A distinct body of cases sought to apply Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 to disqualify Trump from ballots after Jan. 6 litigation. Organizations like CREW have argued Trump engaged in conduct that triggers Section 3 disqualification, and numerous state challenges followed [8] [5]. The Library of Congress Constitution Annotated and state-court developments show courts grappled with who can enforce Section 3 and the appropriate remedy; in Trump v. Anderson the Supreme Court held that states cannot unilaterally determine a candidate’s eligibility under Section 3, underscoring limits on state-level disqualification efforts [3] [9]. The reporting indicates the Supreme Court’s intervention left some lower-court actions paused or curtailed while leaving larger statutory and enforcement questions unresolved [3].
5. Competing perspectives: constitutional text, precedent, and democratic stakes
Judges blocking the executive order have pointed to long-standing Supreme Court precedents and the plain text of the Citizenship Clause, saying the order is inconsistent with that text and century-old interpretations [4] [1]. The administration and some advocates counter that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” admits a narrower reading and that Congress/President can act to clarify boundaries of citizenship [6] [1]. On Section 3, proponents of disqualification argue enforcement is necessary to protect constitutional democracy, while critics and some courts have warned against ad hoc state-level exclusions and stress that enforcement mechanisms require careful legal and possibly congressional processes [8] [3].
6. Limits of the record and what remains unresolved
Current reporting in these sources shows clear preliminary and appellate rulings on the 2025 executive order and significant litigation over Section 3, but does not catalogue every district or state-court outcome nationwide; nor do these documents show a single definitive, final resolution of all Fourteenth Amendment claims against Trump across all forums. Several decisions were preliminary or interlocutory, and the Supreme Court’s limited emergency rulings left some merits questions for lower courts or future review [2] [3] [4].
If you want, I can produce a timeline of the key decisions and filings (district courts, circuits, and the Supreme Court) or extract direct quotes from the major opinions cited above.