Supreme Court to Decide Constitutionality of Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
In a historic development that could redefine the meaning of American citizenship, the U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday that it will review the constitutionality of President Donald J. Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants and temporary foreign nationals. The case is widely viewed as the most significant immigration dispute to reach the Court in generations — and one that could reshape national policy for decades to come.
The justices agreed to hear the administration’s appeal after a series of lower federal courts blocked enforcement of the order, which declares that children born on U.S. soil to parents who lack lawful status or are only temporarily present are not automatically American citizens.
President Trump signed the directive on Day One of his second term in January, calling it a long-overdue correction to what he argued was a “century-long misreading” of the 14th Amendment. The order asserts that the Citizenship Clause has been “grossly distorted by activist judges and bureaucrats” to reward birth tourism and so-called “anchor baby” practices.
“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 Justice Department argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has been intentionally watered down over the last century and that the 14th Amendment was never meant to grant citizenship to children of 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.”
This interpretation directly challenges the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark ruling, in which the Court held that the American-born child of Chinese nationals legally residing in the country was a citizen at birth. Trump’s legal team argues the precedent does not — and never has — applied to individuals in the country unlawfully or on short-term visas.
Since the order was issued, Democratic attorneys general and left-leaning legal groups have filed lawsuits nationwide. Multiple federal judges quickly issued injunctions. In February, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, an Obama appointee, blocked the policy, claiming that removing birthright citizenship “even if temporary and later restored, can likely leave permanent scars.” A Reagan-appointed judge, John Coughenour, had previously issued a nationwide halt in Seattle.
Opponents argue that the order conflicts with the text of the 14th Amendment, which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to take up the case, calling the existing interpretation of citizenship “a mistaken view that has produced destructive consequences.” He argued that treating the children of illegal immigrants as automatic citizens “erodes national sovereignty and rewards illegal entry.”
The administration appealed after a New Hampshire district court certified a nationwide class of families and children affected by the policy, declaring the order “likely unconstitutional” and blocking enforcement.
On Friday, the Supreme Court also declined for now to take up a related appeal involving four states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon — where a divided Ninth Circuit panel ruled against the administration earlier this year.
Arguments in the birthright-citizenship case are expected early next year, with a final decision likely by late June or early July. That timeline sets up a political earthquake in the middle of the 2026 midterm cycle — and could become one of the defining legal battles of President Trump’s second term.
If the order is upheld, the United States will see the most dramatic alteration to citizenship law since the Reconstruction era, effectively ending automatic citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants and short-term foreign visitors — a move long championed by conservatives seeking to restore the original constitutional meaning of the 14th Amendment.