On Tuesday, attorneys general from 22 states filed lawsuits to challenge President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, a long-standing practice that guarantees U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

Trump’s directive, which is to take effect on February 19, instructs federal agencies to halt the issuance of citizenship documents for children born in the United States under the following conditions: if their mothers are in the country illegally, staying temporarily, or if the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident.

Controversy has erupted as lawsuits protest the directive, citing that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

However, the Trump administration contends that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” can legally exclude children of individuals residing in the country unlawfully or on a temporary basis.

The first lawsuit was filed by New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington, D.C., Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and San Francisco. Later in the day, Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon filed a separate legal challenge. Both lawsuits seek a preliminary injunction to block the order before it takes effect on February 19.

Progressive New York Attorney General Letitia James spoke out against the order, calling it a fundamental attack on the principles of citizenship. “The great promise of our nation is that everyone born here is a citizen of the United States, able to achieve the American dream,” she said. “This fundamental right to birthright citizenship, rooted in the 14th Amendment and born from the ashes of slavery, is a cornerstone of our nation’s commitment to justice.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other advocacy organizations have also filed lawsuits, arguing that birthright citizenship is settled law and cannot be altered unilaterally by presidential action. New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin criticized Trump’s move, stating, “The president cannot, with a stroke of a pen, write the 14th Amendment out of existence, period.”

The White House defended the order and dismissed the lawsuits as political opposition. Deputy Press Secretary Harrison Fields said the administration is prepared to face the states in court, calling the legal challenges “an extension of the Left’s resistance.” He added, “Radical Leftists can either choose to swim against the tide and reject the overwhelming will of the people, or they can get on board and work with President Trump.”

National Review explains that the heart of the legal battle is the “interpretation of the 14th Amendment and whether its guarantee of citizenship applies to children born in the U.S. whose parents lack lawful status. Supporters of the amendment argue that it enshrines the principle of jus soli—citizenship by birth on U.S. soil. Critics, including Trump and his allies, assert that the amendment has been misinterpreted and advocate for stricter requirements for citizenship.”

The U.S. is one of about 30 countries, mostly in the Americas, that grant citizenship based on jus soli. Many other nations, however, follow the principle of jus sanguinis, conferring citizenship based on a parent’s nationality or legal status.

Trump’s executive order challenges the idea that the 14th Amendment automatically grants citizenship to all individuals born in the U.S. It specifically excludes children whose mothers are in the country unlawfully or temporarily, as well as those whose fathers are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Efforts to challenge birthright citizenship are not new. In 2011, Arizona lawmakers proposed legislation to address automatic citizenship, intending to push the issue into the courts. However, the bill never passed.