In a significant legal challenge, California has joined 21 other states and two major cities in filing lawsuits against President Donald Trump's executive order that aims to restrict birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizen parents in the United States.

The executive order, set to take effect in 30 days, would prevent federal agencies from issuing citizenship documents like Social Security cards or passports to U.S.-born children whose parents are either unlawfully present or have temporary legal status. The order specifically targets children born to mothers who are either unlawfully present or have temporary legal status, and fathers who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, leading one of the legal challenges, emphasized that the order violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 'The president chose to start his second term by knocking down one of our country's foundational, long-standing rights and disregarding our nation's governing document,' Bonta stated during a San Francisco press conference.

The lawsuit estimates that the order would affect hundreds of thousands of American-born children, including approximately 20,000 children born in California annually. The legal challenge also warns of significant financial implications for states, potentially losing federal funding for programs such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program that are contingent on citizenship status.

The states' argument rests heavily on established legal precedent, particularly citing a Supreme Court case from 127 years ago that confirmed birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizen parents. The complaint asserts that the president lacks the authority to modify or nullify constitutional amendments through executive order.

The White House has defended the order, with Deputy Press Secretary Harrison Fields characterizing the opposition as 'Radical Leftists' going against 'the overwhelming will of the people.'

The legal battle represents a broader conflict over immigration policy, with state authorities preparing for an extended legal confrontation with the Trump administration. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for constitutional interpretation and the scope of executive power in immigration matters.