Supreme Court To Hear Trump’s ‘Birthright Citizenship’ Case
The Supreme Court of the United States is set to hear a landmark case on Thursday that could reshape the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment. At the center of the case is President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end automatic birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens and temporary visa holders.
The justices will now weigh whether lower federal courts overstepped by blocking the President’s order with sweeping nationwide injunctions. This marks the first full hearing during Trump’s second term on a key piece of his constitutional reform agenda, according to The Wall Street Journal.
In a move consistent with his America First platform, President Trump signed the order on Inauguration Day. The directive clarifies that citizenship under the 14th Amendment should only be granted to children born on U.S. soil if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
If upheld, the executive action could halt the automatic conferral of citizenship to roughly 255,000 newborns annually, based on estimates by the Migration Policy Institute. These are children born to foreign nationals present in the country illegally or temporarily — a practice long criticized as an abuse of constitutional intent.
While Thursday's arguments may not yield a definitive ruling just yet, the high court’s decision — expected before July — could signal the justices' appetite for reconsidering a century-old precedent and addressing the overreach of district courts issuing nationwide injunctions.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Historically, this language has been applied broadly, with the exception of children of foreign diplomats. But constitutional originalists and supporters of the President’s order argue that the amendment was designed to ensure citizenship for freed slaves — not to offer an automatic pathway to citizenship for children of those in the country unlawfully.
President Trump’s legal team maintains that individuals who violate U.S. immigration laws are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore their children should not be granted citizenship by birth.
The White House has pointed out that the original intent of the 14th Amendment was to nullify Dred Scott v. Sandford — the 1857 Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to African Americans — not to extend citizenship to every foreign national who crosses the border.
Opponents of the policy, primarily from Democrat-led states and immigration activist groups, rushed to challenge the executive order in court. Judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state — all liberal jurisdictions — issued nationwide injunctions, calling the policy likely unconstitutional.
But the Trump administration is fighting back. The Justice Department is now asking the Supreme Court to curtail the overuse of nationwide injunctions, arguing that unelected district judges have used them as blunt instruments to obstruct lawful executive authority and national policy.
This trend — criticized at times by both conservatives and liberals, depending on which party controls the White House — has been increasingly used to block Trump’s efforts to restore immigration enforcement and protect American sovereignty.
In a 2018 interview, then-President Trump previewed his long-term vision:
“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” he said. “It’s in the process. It’ll happen, with an executive order.”
Though a 1995 Justice Department opinion under a prior administration claimed that ending birthright citizenship would require amending the Constitution, President Trump is challenging that conventional wisdom — and the Supreme Court may soon weigh in.
As with many parts of Trump’s immigration and border enforcement strategy, this case is expected to define not just the contours of citizenship, but also the limits of judicial activism and executive power.
With oral arguments now set, the nation awaits a ruling that could mark a turning point in the effort to reclaim the original meaning of the Constitution and protect the rule of law.