Trump Asks Supreme Court to End Birthright Citizenship/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to decide whether his executive order ending birthright citizenship is constitutional. Lower courts have repeatedly blocked the policy, citing the 14th Amendment and longstanding precedent. The administration argues current interpretations wrongly extend citizenship to children of noncitizens.
Trump Birthright Citizenship Appeal Quick Looks
- Trump’s executive order seeks to end birthright citizenship for children of noncitizens
- Supreme Court petition filed Friday, second time this year
- Government argues 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted for decades
- Lower courts in San Francisco and New Hampshire blocked the policy
- ACLU calls the order unconstitutional and cruel
- Appeals court rulings maintain Wong Kim Ark precedent (1898)
- Trump DOJ: policy needed to protect meaning of citizenship
- Policy remains on hold nationwide due to ongoing challenges
- Not clear if four justices will agree to hear case
- Issue could reshape constitutional rights for millions
Deep Look: Trump Pushes Supreme Court to Decide on Birthright Citizenship
WASHINGTON — September 26, 2025
The Trump administration is once again asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on the legality of its effort to end birthright citizenship, escalating a high-stakes legal battle that could redefine who qualifies as an American citizen.
In an appeal filed Friday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that longstanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment — which guarantee U.S. citizenship to individuals born on American soil — are “mistaken” and have led to “destructive consequences.”
“Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people,” Sauer wrote.
Trump’s Executive Order and Policy Goals
The executive order at the heart of the dispute, signed January 20, is titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” It declares that the federal government will not issue citizenship documents to children born in the United States to parents who are either undocumented immigrants or foreign nationals in the country temporarily.
The administration insists the policy is essential for border security and to ensure that citizenship is reserved for those “lawfully entitled to it.”
Lower Court Setbacks
So far, Trump’s policy has faced significant legal roadblocks:
- In July 2025, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Seattle judge’s ruling blocking the order nationwide, siding with Democratic-led states that sued to stop its implementation.
- That same month, a New Hampshire federal judge blocked the order in a separate class-action case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which argued that denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. violates both the Constitution and established precedent.
ACLU attorney Cody Wofsy, who argued the New Hampshire case, said:
“This executive order is illegal, full stop. We will continue to ensure that no baby’s citizenship is ever stripped away by this cruel and senseless order.”
The Constitutional Question
At the center of the legal fight is the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, ratified in 1868, which says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
In 1898, the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that children born in the U.S. — even to noncitizen parents — are entitled to citizenship, with only narrow exceptions.
The Trump administration contends that Wong Kim Ark has been misapplied, arguing that citizenship should only apply to those with “permanent domicile and residence” in the United States, not temporary visitors or undocumented immigrants.
So far, lower courts have rejected that reasoning. Judge Ronald Gould, writing for the 9th Circuit majority, ruled:
“The Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree.”
Supreme Court’s Role and Uncertainty
The high court has touched on the issue before. In June 2025, the justices issued a 6-3 decision limiting lower courts’ power to block executive policies, but they did not fully rule on the merits of Trump’s birthright order. That ruling left space for new challenges, prompting fresh lawsuits and injunctions.
Now, the administration has filed appeals in both the San Francisco and New Hampshire cases, seeking a definitive Supreme Court ruling.
For the case to move forward, at least four justices must agree to hear it. While the administration remains confident, it is unclear whether the court’s conservative majority will take up the dispute.
The Broader Stakes
If the Supreme Court eventually sides with Trump, the decision would mark a historic shift in U.S. immigration and constitutional law, potentially denying citizenship to tens of thousands of babies born each year in the United States to undocumented or temporary residents.
For now, the order remains blocked, and opponents vow to continue fighting.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.