The state of California is gearing up to sue President Donald Trump’s administration for the 124th time. During his time back in the Oval Office, Trump has created a number of controversial executive orders, pinpointing areas like the economy, the environment, civil rights and the notorious Jan. 6 insurrection, among many others.
One of the most contentious spheres Trump focused on was immigration policy. He initiated a plethora of vigorous changes that are already making waves across the United States. A particular executive order — Executive Order 14160 — aiming to end birthright citizenship catalyzed legal counteraction from over 20 states, including California.
Since his first term as president, California has been known to take a starkly contrarian stance to initiatives backed by Trump. Distinctively uncompromising environmental protection laws, the California Values Act (SB-54) and several rebuttals over healthcare matters have made California out to be “a vanguard of resistance.”
California’s acts of legal resistance to Trump’s policies are often framed as a feature of classic partisan dispute. However, this ongoing battle speaks to something much larger.
The Trump administration has made its aims of “radically” reforming the very structure of the U.S. government abundantly clear. They have plans to reclassify large portions of the federal workforce, amend the 22nd Amendment and create the Department of Governmental Efficiency task force to tremendously slash federal spending. The framework of the American federalist union equips individual states with the right and responsibility to challenge federal overreach by asserting checks on centralized power. This principle has been a key tenet of the country’s structure since its genesis, making Trump’s efforts seem at odds with the foundational values of the nation.
Many legal experts agree that Trump’s Executive Order 14160, called “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” violates the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause. Federal Judge John Coughenour referred to the action as “blatantly unconstitutional” and enacted a temporary hold on the order. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld birthright citizenship notably in cases like Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, United States v. Wong Kim Ark and Elk v. Wilkins. They have affirmed that anyone born on U.S. soil — except for members of sovereign Indigenous tribes or children of foreign diplomats — is a legal citizen.
Whether or not a person’s parents are immigrants has not historically affected their citizenship rights. In a recent press release, California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated, “From the beginning of our nation’s history, America followed the common law tradition that those born on U.S. soil are subject to its laws and are citizens by birth.”
The complaint filed by California and 21 other states goes beyond partisan opposition; it’s a direct response to what many government officials see as an unconstitutional overreach by the incumbent executive. There’s no telling exactly how the dispute will progress, but it seems unlikely that it will overturn foundational policy.
Many legal experts agree that revoking birthright citizenship would require an amendment to the Constitution, which in turn necessitates a two-thirds vote in both legislative chambers and ratification by three-quarters of the states. This process has been historically difficult to achieve. Some expect the Republican-dominated Supreme Court to be more open to reinterpreting the 14th Amendment. Especially under a more originalist bench, justices should be even more inclined to respect the plain text of the Constitution.
The U.S. government was designed to ensure a delicate balance of power between the national government and the states. Individual sovereignty over areas like education, law enforcement and immigration gives states the ability to challenge federal actions that they believe overstep constitutional boundaries. In a politically polarized climate, it is easy to dismiss actions like California’s legal challenges as purely partisan. However, this framing misses the point that such resistance stems from a much deeper concern for the integrity of the constitutional system.
The states’ legal challenges to these subversive policies demonstrate that the structural safeguards for democracy are working just as the framers of the Constitution intended. The strength of the country lies in its ability to hold the line on essential rights, regardless of who is in power at the federal level and regardless of what party affiliation they represent.
Casey Mendoza is an Opinion Intern for the winter 2025 quarter. He can be reached at caseym4@uci.edu.
Edited by Zahira Vasquez