What did district courts say in the written opinions when blocking EO 14160, and how did each judge interpret the 14th Amendment?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Multiple federal district courts enjoined enforcement of Executive Order 14160, with written opinions holding that the Order likely violates the Fourteenth Amendment by contravening the Citizenship Clause as historically interpreted and by conflicting with long‑standing Supreme Court precedent such as Wong Kim Ark (the courts found plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits) [1] [2] [3]. The courts’ opinions interpreted the 14th Amendment narrowly against the executive redefinition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” while opponents urged original‑intent readings that would permit the EO [4] [5].
1. What the district courts wrote when blocking EO 14160
District judges entered preliminary injunctions that repeatedly found the Executive Order “conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment,” contradicts “125‑year‑old binding Supreme Court precedent,” and is therefore likely unconstitutional—language that appears across multiple judicial opinions granting nationwide relief [1] [2] [3]. Courts explained that the Order’s administrative commands (directing agencies not to recognize the citizenship of certain U.S.‑born children) would interfere with rights conferred by the Constitution and federal nationality statutes and would cause irreparable harm to plaintiffs, including the risk of statelessness for some children, thereby justifying injunctive relief [2] [3]. In at least one opinion a judge framed U.S. citizenship as “a right no less precious than life or liberty,” using that rhetoric to underscore the gravity of stripping recognized citizenship [6].
2. How each judge interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and precedent
The district courts uniformly read the Citizenship Clause’s text—“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…”—in light of long‑standing judicial gloss that grants jus soli to nearly all persons born on U.S. soil, and explicitly relied on Wong Kim Ark and subsequent precedent to reject the EO’s narrower construction of “subject to the jurisdiction” [3] [2]. Judges characterized the government’s argument (that “subject to the jurisdiction” requires primary allegiance or permanent lawful status) as a “novel interpretation” inconsistent with the Clause’s plain meaning and historic practice, concluding plaintiffs were likely to succeed because the EO seeks to unilaterally overrule century‑old Supreme Court holdings [1] [2] [4]. At the same time, some courts analyzed “subject to the jurisdiction” functionally—as being subject to U.S. law and authority—thereby rejecting the administration’s claim that temporary or unauthorized presence removes a child from the Clause’s sweep [4].
3. The injunctions’ scope and the judicial tug over nationwide relief
District courts issued sweeping, universal preliminary injunctions preventing enforcement of EO 14160 against anyone nationwide, a remedy the courts saw as necessary to afford complete relief to the plaintiffs and to preserve constitutional rights pending adjudication [7] [8]. Those universal injunctions later became the subject of a Supreme Court decision curtailing lower courts’ authority to enter nationwide orders: the high court limited universal injunctions as overbroad but expressly declined to resolve the EO’s constitutionality, leaving unresolved questions about whether and how the EO could be implemented absent further judicial action [7] [9].
4. Dissenting views, amici, and broader legal context
Opponents of the district courts’ readings include originalist advocates and amicus groups arguing the EO follows the Fourteenth Amendment’s original intent and should not be enjoined, with filings from groups like the Public Interest Legal Foundation urging courts to recognize a more restrictive meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” [5]. Legal commentators and law firms emphasize that a president cannot overturn Supreme Court precedent by executive order and note that lower‑court injunctions relied heavily on precedent and statutory law while the Supreme Court later narrowed the availability of universal relief without deciding the merits [10] [7]. The reporting and court documents make clear the district judges relied on textual reading and precedent to block the EO, while alternative constitutional theories remain alive in briefs and appellate filings [2] [5].