Since assuming office on January 20, President Donald Trump has made headlines for exercising exceptional executive authority, often challenging constitutional norms. A notable example is his executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, which directly contradicts the Constitution’s guarantee that any child born on U.S. soil is a citizen, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
This order, along with several others, has been met with legal challenges in federal courts as watchdog groups and Democratic-led states seek to curtail Trump’s authority. The Republican Party, largely aligned with Trump, controls both chambers of Congress, effectively rendering the legislature a rubber-stamp body for presidential initiatives. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, now with a conservative majority bolstered by Trump’s appointees, complicates the legal landscape.
Federal judges have paused multiple executive actions, including the termination of birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, the transfer of transgender women prisoners to male-only facilities, and measures that could expose the identities of FBI personnel involved in the January 6 Capitol attack. Reports indicate that over 40 lawsuits have been filed against Trump’s directives, emphasizing significant legal resistance.
Judges have expressed concerns that several of Trump’s actions violate constitutional principles. For instance, Judge John C. Coughenour ruled against the birthright citizenship ban, stating that changing such a fundamental provision requires a constitutional amendment.
Despite the challenges, Trump and his supporters assert that his actions are legitimate, viewing judicial interventions as overreaches into presidential authority. Experts suggest that Trump may be inviting legal challenges to escalate them to the Supreme Court, where he expects favorable rulings that could turn his controversial actions into established judicial precedents.
