Supreme Court Reviews Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether to hear President Trump’s appeal on his order limiting birthright citizenship for children of noncitizens. Lower courts have blocked the order, calling it unconstitutional. A final ruling could arrive by summer 2026.
Birthright Citizenship Battle + Quick Looks
- Supreme Court considering Trump’s appeal on birthright citizenship restrictions.
- Trump’s order denies citizenship to children born to undocumented or temporary immigrants.
- Every lower court has blocked the policy as unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
- A final ruling from the justices could arrive by mid-2026.
- Legal experts say the order challenges over 125 years of settled constitutional law.
- The administration argues noncitizens’ children are not “subject to U.S. jurisdiction.”
- ACLU leads legal opposition, calling arguments legally weak.
- Case reflects Trump’s broader immigration enforcement agenda in his second term.
Supreme Court Reviews Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
Deep Look
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide whether it will take up one of the most contentious constitutional issues of the Trump administration: the attempt to limit birthright citizenship. At the center of the dispute is an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on his first day back in office, which denies U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil to parents who are in the country either illegally or on temporary visas.
This order, now under review for potential Supreme Court hearing, has already been struck down by several lower courts. However, the administration is pushing for a reversal, arguing that the Constitution does not automatically grant citizenship to children of noncitizens — a position that has alarmed constitutional scholars, civil rights groups, and multiple state governments.
If the justices agree to hear the case, oral arguments would likely take place in spring 2026, with a ruling expected by early summer.
The executive order is a cornerstone of Trump’s broader immigration crackdown during his second term. Other related actions include stepped-up enforcement raids in sanctuary cities, legal use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport foreign nationals without court hearings, and National Guard deployments for immigration-related operations in several urban areas. Some of these initiatives have also been contested in lower courts.
The legal foundation for Trump’s birthright citizenship restriction rests on a disputed interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which states that all persons born in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. This clause has long been interpreted to include nearly all children born on U.S. soil, with narrow exceptions — namely, those born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces.
Trump’s legal team argues that undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders are not fully under U.S. jurisdiction and therefore their children do not qualify for citizenship.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, argued in a court filing that prior rulings “confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.” He added that the order was critical to border security and national sovereignty.
Opponents of the order say it directly contradicts more than a century of legal precedent. In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that a child born in the U.S. to foreign parents was indeed a citizen under the 14th Amendment. Critics say the current administration is attempting to undo that foundational ruling without the backing of Congress or a constitutional amendment.
Two main legal challenges to Trump’s policy are now on appeal. One, brought by a group of states and decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, resulted in a nationwide injunction. The court ruled that the order would create legal chaos if enforced in some states but not others. The second challenge, a class-action suit led by the ACLU and filed in New Hampshire, included all children potentially affected by the executive order.
ACLU attorney Cody Wofsy said the administration’s legal justification was flimsy and politically motivated. “But if the court decides to hear the case, we’re more than ready to take Trump on and win,” he added.
The 14th Amendment was enacted after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for former slaves and their descendants. Legal experts argue that any rollback of birthright citizenship undermines that historical legacy and opens the door to new classes of stateless individuals within the U.S.
Trump’s administration claims that reinterpreting the citizenship clause is necessary to address alleged abuses of the system. However, immigration and civil rights advocates warn that such measures could criminalize birth and threaten the constitutional protections of millions.
Lower courts have been united in their rejection of the policy, even after the Supreme Court earlier this year limited the use of nationwide injunctions. The justices did not weigh in on the constitutionality of the birthright order at that time but allowed narrower injunctions with national implications.
The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear the appeal could be announced as early as Monday. If accepted, the case would likely become a defining legal battle of the Trump administration’s second term — and a historic moment for immigration law and constitutional interpretation in the United States.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.