By Courtney Chappell, Vice President of Programs, AAPIP
Recently, AAPIP partnered with Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees (GCIR) and Philanthropy New York to bring our community a critical briefing on birthright citizenship and the ongoing legal battle challenging President Trump’s executive order. The conversation couldn’t have been more timely or more necessary.
As someone who has worked in advocacy for years, I’ve seen how quickly the legal landscape can shift. But what we’re witnessing now represents something different: a coordinated attempt to undermine constitutional protections that have defined American democracy for nearly 160 years. For philanthropic professionals, especially those funding civil rights, immigrant rights, and democracy work, understanding this moment is essential for making strategic funding decisions.
The Historical Context
Ivy Suriyopas from GCIR opened our briefing with a powerful reminder: citizenship in America has always been contested, and the definition of who gets to be an American has shifted repeatedly based on political power and racial dynamics. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, established birthright citizenship as a direct response to the organizing and advocacy of free African Americans who demanded recognition as full citizens.
This history matters because it illuminates the intentional nature of current attacks. The executive order is an attempt to roll back a constitutional principle born from centuries of struggle for racial justice.
As Ivy detailed, the movement for birthright citizenship emerged from Black organizing in the 1800s, when free African Americans formed the National Equal Rights League and pushed back against efforts to remove them from the country. Their advocacy, combined with legal scholarship from abolitionists like William Yates, laid the groundwork for the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and ultimately the 14th Amendment.
The parallels to today are striking. We’re seeing the same dynamics, fear of demographic change, attempts to create legal hierarchies of citizenship, and organized resistance from impacted communities and our allies.
The Legal Battle: Where We Stand
Aarti Kohli from Asian Law Caucus provided an update that was both sobering and energizing. The good news? Legal advocates are winning. In fact, organizations challenging the Trump administration have won 94% of cases in lower courts. That’s a number worth remembering when the news cycle feels overwhelming.
But the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA has fundamentally altered how civil rights organizations can challenge unconstitutional executive actions. The Court’s 6-3 ruling limiting nationwide injunctions means advocacy organizations now need more complex legal strategies, including class action lawsuits and challenges under the Administrative Procedures Act.
Here’s what this means practically: The executive order is currently blocked nationwide thanks to multiple injunctions, including a class action filed by Asian Law Caucus the same day as the Supreme Court’s decision. But this legal protection could shift, and the case will likely reach the Supreme Court within the next year.
The executive order would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. whose parents are undocumented, have temporary immigration status, or fall into other categories not explicitly protected. This includes parents with TPS, student visas, H-1B visas, and asylum seekers who haven’t yet won their cases. The bureaucratic chaos alone, requiring agencies to verify parents’ immigration status before issuing Social Security numbers or passports, would affect every American family.
Strategic Implications for Philanthropy
As I listened to Aarti and Ivy, three strategic funding priorities became clear for philanthropic professionals:
1. Movement Lawyering Requires Sustained Investment
The organizations challenging this executive order are engaging in movement lawyering that combines legal advocacy with community organizing and public education. Asian Law Caucus’s “Equal Under the Law” campaign exemplifies this approach, working with local partners to ensure communities have accurate information while building the organizing infrastructure needed for long-term advocacy.
This work requires different funding models than traditional legal services. Movement lawyering organizations need multi-year, flexible support to maintain rapid response capabilities while building sustained community power.
2. Cross-Racial Coalition Work Is Essential
GCIR’s historical timeline revealed how different communities have been pitted against each other in citizenship battles, from the explicit exclusion of Chinese immigrants when eligibility expanded to African Americans in 1870, to the complex dynamics around European immigrant naturalization in the early 1900s.
Today’s defense of birthright citizenship requires funders to support organizations building authentic cross-racial solidarity like funding the relationship-building and narrative work that connects birthright citizenship to broader struggles for racial justice.
3. Rapid Response Must Be Coupled with Long-term Strategy
The Supreme Court’s limitation of nationwide injunctions means civil rights organizations need both immediate resources for emergency litigation and long-term funding for sustained advocacy. Funders need to provide resources that allow organizations to respond quickly to legal developments while building the infrastructure for multi-year campaigns. This includes funding for community education, narrative strategy, and the essential work of coalition coordination.
What AANHPI Communities Bring to This Fight
Our communities have unique contributions to this constitutional battle. The 1898 Wong Kim Ark case established that children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents are citizens regardless of their parents’ eligibility for citizenship and remains foundational precedent. That case emerged from Chinese American organizing against exclusionary immigration laws.
AANHPI communities also understand the intersection of immigration status and civil rights in ways that inform broader advocacy. Many of our families navigate mixed-status households, temporary immigration categories, and complex bureaucratic systems. Our experiences provide crucial insight for developing both legal strategy and community protection efforts. From the early civil rights alliances between Japanese American and African American advocates to contemporary immigrant rights coalitions, our communities have practiced the kind of solidarity-building this moment requires.
Moving Forward: Questions for Funders
As we continue to navigate this legal landscape and plan next steps, I encourage philanthropic professionals to consider these questions:
For those funding civil rights work: How can you provide the flexible, multi-year support that movement lawyering organizations need to sustain rapid response capabilities?
For those funding immigrant rights organizations: How does your grantmaking support community education and organizing work that prevents fear-based policies from achieving their goals even when legally blocked?
For those funding democracy initiatives: How does your portfolio address the intersection of voting rights, citizenship, and immigrant rights that this constitutional battle represents?
For those new to this work: What organizations in your region are building the cross-racial coalitions and community education infrastructure this moment requires?
The Path Ahead
Aarti ended our briefing with a reminder that resonated deeply: “We are winning. We are winning in all of the lower courts.” But she also emphasized that winning in court requires sustained organizing, community education, and the kind of movement infrastructure that philanthropy is uniquely positioned to support.
This fight is about whether we’ll allow fear of demographic change to dismantle constitutional protections that have made American democracy more inclusive over time.
The legal advocates, organizers, and community leaders challenging birthright citizenship attacks need resources, and they need them now. And they also need funders who understand that defending constitutional protections requires long-term investment in movement infrastructure.
As AANHPI philanthropic professionals, we have both personal stakes in this fight and professional responsibilities to ensure our sector responds strategically. The 14th Amendment’s promise emerged from centuries of organizing by marginalized communities. Protecting that promise requires the same kind of sustained, strategic investment our communities have always brought to justice work.
The full recording of our briefing with Ivy Suriyopas and Aarti Kohli is embedded below. I encourage you to watch the complete conversation and share it with colleagues who fund civil rights, immigrant rights, or democracy initiatives.