Donald Trump
Donald Trump

Trump’s Executive Orders Face Legal Scrutiny Over Immigration, Federal Spending, and Citizenship Rights

President Donald Trump’s executive actions have sparked significant legal concerns, with several of his policies facing strong opposition from the judiciary. Legal experts suggest that initiatives like rolling back birthright citizenship and invoking historical laws, such as the Alien Enemies Act, could encounter considerable resistance in court.

Additionally, controversial moves like reallocating federal funds for the border wall and refusing to spend appropriated money on environmental policies may be subject to legal challenges. Civil rights organizations, state attorneys general, and other legal groups are preparing lawsuits, although not all will succeed.

One of the most contentious policies under Trump’s administration involves the challenge to birthright citizenship, a right protected by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The amendment guarantees that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen, a provision that was established to secure citizenship for former slaves after the Civil War. Despite the long-standing legal understanding of this right, Trump has argued that children born to parents who entered the country illegally should be excluded from this protection.

Trump’s interpretation focuses on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction,” claiming that it excludes children born to undocumented parents. However, legal experts across the spectrum disagree, pointing to the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which upheld birthright citizenship. Civil rights organizations, including the ACLU, are preparing lawsuits to contest the executive order, confident that the courts will uphold the constitutionally guaranteed right.

Donald Trump
Donald Trump

Immigration Policies and Legal Pushback

Trump’s broader immigration policies are also likely to face significant legal challenges. One of these policies, the “Remain in Mexico” program, required asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while their applications were processed. While the Supreme Court did not directly address this issue during Trump’s first term, it allowed President Biden to unwind the policy in 2022.

Trump’s attempt to revive similar measures will likely lead to further legal disputes, as courts examine whether such actions are consistent with U.S. law. Given the controversial nature of these policies, civil rights groups and state attorneys general are expected to challenge them, with uncertain outcomes based on past rulings.

Another controversial Trump policy involves invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a law from 1798 that permits the president to detain or deport foreign nationals during wartime. Trump has suggested using the law to target members of drug cartels, despite the fact that the U.S. is not at war, and the law was never intended to be applied to this context.

Legal experts, such as George Mason University’s Professor Ilya Somin, argue that invoking the law in this way would be unconstitutional, as it was designed for wartime situations and does not apply to the current situation. With no war currently in effect and the law’s application restricted, the use of the Alien Enemies Act is expected to face serious legal challenges and could be struck down by the courts.

Trump’s Executive Orders Face Legal Scrutiny Over Immigration, Federal Spending, and Citizenship Rights
Trump’s Executive Orders Face Legal Scrutiny Over Immigration, Federal Spending, and Citizenship Rights

Reallocation of Federal Funds for the Border Wall

Trump’s previous attempt to redirect military funds for the construction of a border wall after Congress failed to allocate sufficient funds led to legal battles over presidential authority regarding federal spending. With Trump looking to continue the wall’s construction in his second term, this issue is likely to resurface in court.

The Constitution’s Appropriations Clause gives Congress the power over federal spending, making any attempt by the president to bypass Congress potentially illegal. Past litigation over this issue has led to mixed results, but it is expected that similar challenges will occur if Trump continues his efforts to fund the wall through unconventional means.

Another legal issue surrounding Trump’s executive actions involves the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which requires the president to spend funds as directed by Congress. Trump’s potential refusal to spend money on programs approved by Congress, such as environmental initiatives, could lead to legal challenges.

Critics argue that such actions would violate the Impoundment Control Act and could trigger lawsuits from states and advocacy groups. These cases would test the limits of executive power and could result in rulings that clarify the boundaries between the executive and legislative branches, particularly in matters of federal spending.