Future Of Birthright Citizenship Unclear After Court Ruling

Today at 11:42 am

4178 posts

Future Of Birthright Citizenship Unclear After Court Ruling/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Supreme Court limited nationwide injunctions but avoided ruling on Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship. Legal battles now return to lower courts, where immigrant advocates plan to keep fighting. Without nationwide rulings, experts warn of chaos and inconsistent citizenship policies across states.

President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Quick Look

Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions but avoids ruling on Trump’s order
Lower courts must now decide next steps for birthright citizenship challenges
Advocates warn of potential legal chaos across states

What’s Ahead for Birthright Citizenship After Supreme Court Ruling

DEEP LOOK

WASHINGTON (AP) — The battle over President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship remains far from settled, despite a significant Supreme Court victory for his administration that limits the power of lower courts to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions.

Immigrant advocates and legal experts are preparing for a new wave of litigation to preserve a constitutional principle that has been central to U.S. identity for more than a century. While the Supreme Court’s ruling curtails nationwide injunctions, it did not decide whether Trump’s order itself is constitutional — leaving the issue in limbo and sending legal challenges back to the lower courts.

Here’s what to know about where things stand, and what’s next.

What is Birthright Citizenship?

Birthright citizenship guarantees that virtually anyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen — regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

This right stems from the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, which declares:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The principle was cemented in 1898, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents but denied re-entry into the country after traveling abroad. The Court confirmed that the 14th Amendment covers nearly everyone born in the U.S., except for children of diplomats and certain other limited exceptions.

Trump’s Executive Order — and the Legal Clash

Trump has long called birthright citizenship a “magnet for illegal immigration.” In January, he signed an executive order seeking to deny U.S. citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants or those in the country temporarily.

The administration argues that the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the U.S. can exclude such children from citizenship. However, federal judges have repeatedly ruled otherwise, calling the order unconstitutional and issuing nationwide injunctions to block it.

“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” said U.S. District Judge John Coughenour at a hearing in Seattle earlier this year.

Supreme Court Ruling — But No Final Decision Yet

Last week, the Supreme Court handed Trump a partial victory by limiting the power of individual judges to impose nationwide injunctions — a legal tool frequently used to halt presidential policies across the entire country.

But crucially, the justices did not rule on whether Trump’s birthright citizenship order itself violates the Constitution. Instead, the Court sent the cases back to lower courts, where judges must now figure out how to proceed under the new legal framework.

“The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges’ decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,” said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor.

What Happens Next?

The lower courts will now reexamine the lawsuits challenging Trump’s order. For at least the next 30 days, the order remains blocked while courts and lawyers work out how to proceed.

One likely path for challengers is to seek nationwide class-action status to secure broad relief. However, legal experts caution that class-action suits are difficult to certify, especially given years of tightening standards in federal courts.

“It’s not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,” said Suzette Malveaux, a professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented from the Supreme Court’s ruling, urged lower courts to move swiftly:

“The lower courts should act quickly on such requests for relief and adjudicate the cases as promptly as they can so this Court may review them.”

Fears of Chaos Without Nationwide Rules

Advocates worry that, without nationwide injunctions, there could be conflicting rulings in different states, leading to legal chaos over who qualifies as a U.S. citizen.

“Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president of Global Refuge, a nonprofit supporting migrants. “By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.”

For now, the future of birthright citizenship remains one of the most closely watched legal battles in the country — and a significant flashpoint in America’s ongoing debate over immigration.