Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Birthright Citizenship Case
The U.S. Supreme Court announced it will hear oral arguments on April 1 in a landmark case challenging birthright citizenship, setting the stage for a major constitutional showdown over the scope of the 14th Amendment and federal immigration policy.
The case raises both statutory and constitutional questions about whether the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment applies automatically to children born in the United States to parents who are not lawful permanent residents. The challengers argue that the original meaning of the clause does not extend citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally, a position that directly confronts decades of legal and political orthodoxy.
The justices agreed to take up the appeal after lower courts rejected challenges brought by petitioners seeking to narrow the application of birthright citizenship. Oral arguments are expected to focus heavily on historical records from the post–Civil War era, including congressional debates and the original public understanding of the amendment at the time it was ratified.
At the center of the dispute is Trump v. Barbara, a challenge to an executive order issued by President Donald J. Trump on January 20, 2025, the first day of his second term in office. The order sought to end the automatic granting of U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil to parents who are unlawfully present in the country or who are only in the United States on a temporary basis.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case comes amid an intensifying national debate over border security and immigration enforcement. Supporters of ending birthright citizenship argue that the policy has acted as a magnet for illegal immigration and has been exploited for decades, while critics warn that altering the current interpretation could disrupt settled expectations and place some individuals in legal uncertainty.
Legal observers say the April 1 arguments are likely to be among the most closely watched of the term, with potentially sweeping implications for immigration law and constitutional interpretation. While the Court is not expected to issue a ruling until late June, the outcome could reshape federal policy and redefine the limits of citizenship under U.S. law.
The justices first announced in December that they would hear the case, agreeing to step in after a series of lower court rulings blocked the Trump administration from enforcing the order. Those decisions set up a direct clash between the executive branch and the judiciary over the meaning of the Constitution itself.
President Trump has defended the directive as a long-overdue correction to what he has called a fundamental misreading of the 14th Amendment. In issuing the order, he argued that the Citizenship Clause has been twisted by courts and bureaucrats to justify automatic citizenship for so-called “anchor babies.”
“It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the government shall issue or recognize documents purporting to confer U.S. citizenship to a person whose mother was unlawfully present in the United States and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of that person’s birth,” the order states.
The Trump administration’s Justice Department has emphasized that the key constitutional phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not encompass children born to foreign nationals who owe allegiance to another country or who are present in the United States illegally.
“The Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States,” the order said. “It has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The administration’s legal theory directly challenges the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that a child born in the United States to foreign parents legally residing in the country was a citizen at birth. While that ruling has long been treated as controlling precedent, Trump’s legal team argues it does not apply to children of parents who entered or remain in the country unlawfully.