In a monumental development that could reshape the nation’s immigration framework, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will hear arguments on President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. The case, one of the most far-reaching immigration disputes to reach the Court in decades, comes after multiple lower courts blocked the administration from implementing the policy. Trump issued the order on his first day back in office, framing it as a corrective measure to what he called a century-long misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. The directive asserts that children born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally or only temporarily should not receive automatic U.S. citizenship, marking a stark departure from long-standing constitutional practice and settled expectations about rights at birth.
The executive order’s central claim is that the current understanding of the 14th Amendment—long interpreted to confer citizenship on nearly all children born on U.S. soil—has been distorted by courts and policymakers over time. According to the order, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of noncitizens who owe allegiance to another nation or who are present unlawfully. By declaring that no federal agency may issue or recognize citizenship documents for such children, the policy attempts to redefine the limits of constitutional membership. Trump’s Justice Department contends that the 14th Amendment should not apply universally and that its framers intended specific exceptions. This interpretation directly contradicts the prevailing legal consensus, which has relied for generations on a broad reading of the jurisdiction clause.
At the heart of the dispute is the 1898 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that a child born in the United States to noncitizen parents legally residing here was a citizen at birth. That case has long served as the cornerstone of the nation’s birthright citizenship doctrine. However, Trump’s legal team argues that Wong Kim Ark does not apply to children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors, and that the Court has never squarely addressed that question. Lower courts have so far rejected this narrower interpretation. Judges across the ideological spectrum have issued injunctions blocking the order, with some emphasizing the potential harms of denying newborns legal nationality, even on a temporary basis. These rulings underscore widespread judicial skepticism of the administration’s constitutional reasoning.
Opposition to the order has been swift and robust. Democratic attorneys general from numerous states sued to halt its enforcement, contending that the policy violates both the text and the history of the 14th Amendment. They argue that the amendment was designed to eliminate doubts about citizenship after the Civil War and that its language—“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”—has consistently been understood to include nearly every child born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental status. Plaintiffs also point to decades of Supreme Court decisions reaffirming inclusive birthright principles. Meanwhile, Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the high court to intervene, calling long-standing interpretations “mistaken” and asserting that automatic citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants undermines national sovereignty and encourages unlawful entry.
The litigation has broadened significantly in recent months. A New Hampshire district court certified a nationwide class of families affected by the policy, deeming the order likely unconstitutional and suspending its implementation while challenges proceed. Additionally, although the Supreme Court declined to immediately act on a related appeal from four states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—the matter continues to reverberate through the federal judiciary, where a divided 9th Circuit panel previously ruled against the administration. With the Supreme Court now set to weigh in, the legal landscape surrounding birthright citizenship is entering unprecedented territory. Oral arguments are expected early next year, and observers anticipate a ruling by late June or early July, just months before the 2026 election season reaches full intensity.
If the Court upholds Trump’s executive order, it would represent the most sweeping transformation of American citizenship law since the Reconstruction era. The policy would effectively end automatic citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors, reshaping not only immigration enforcement but also the nation’s demographic, political, and legal foundations. Critics warn that such a change could create a permanent underclass of stateless children and dislodge a bedrock principle that has anchored U.S. identity for generations. Supporters argue it would restore constitutional fidelity and help deter illegal immigration. Regardless of the outcome, the Court’s decision promises to be one of the most consequential constitutional rulings of the decade, with implications for millions of families and the future meaning of American citizenship itself.
