The Supreme Court’s review of President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship could redefine a constitutional cornerstone that has stood for over a century.
At a Glance
- The Supreme Court is reviewing President Trump’s January 20 executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants
- Justices are considering both the constitutionality of the order and whether district courts have authority to block it nationwide
- The administration argues the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted and shouldn’t apply to children of undocumented immigrants
- Justice Sotomayor noted the order contradicts the 1898 Supreme Court precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark
- A ruling against national injunctions could allow birthright citizenship to end in states not challenging Trump’s order
Constitutional Showdown Reaches Supreme Court
The United States Supreme Court began hearing arguments in a landmark case that could fundamentally alter how citizenship is determined in America. At issue is President Donald Trump’s executive order from January 20 that seeks to end the longstanding policy granting automatic citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil. The case represents the first time the nation’s highest court has addressed this controversial order, which targets children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors.
The court faces two critical questions: whether Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment is constitutional and whether district courts possess the authority to block such policies nationwide. The stakes are extraordinarily high, with justices’ questions suggesting the court may focus more narrowly on the procedural question of nationwide injunctions rather than making an immediate ruling on the broader constitutional issue.
The Justices on the Supreme Court wrestled on Thursday with a high-stakes case involving birthright citizenship that’s poised to shape both the Trump Administration’s immigration policy and its attempts to expand presidential powerhttps://t.co/i23oLz7pp2
— TIME (@TIME) May 15, 2025
The Birthright Battle Lines
The Trump administration has taken the position that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause has been misinterpreted for generations. The amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The administration contends that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of those who entered the country illegally or temporarily, despite longstanding legal precedent to the contrary.
“We are here at the highest court in the land because a fundamental promise of America is under attack. And we are here to say not on our watch.”, said Ama Frimpong.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointedly challenged the administration’s position during oral arguments, noting that Trump’s order directly contradicts established Supreme Court precedent, particularly the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In that decision, the court ruled that a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents was entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, establishing a precedent that has guided American citizenship law for more than a century.
Birthright citizenship is among several issues, many related to immigration, that the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to address on an emergency basis, after lower courts acted to slow the president's agenda. https://t.co/B2nLrUg2h9
— KATU News (@KATUNews) May 15, 2025
National Injunctions Under Scrutiny
Several justices appeared more focused on the procedural question of whether district courts should have the power to issue nationwide injunctions against executive policies. This approach could allow the court to limit the authority of lower courts without immediately ruling on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself. Legal experts suggest that a ruling restricting nationwide injunctions would represent a transformative shift in how federal courts operate and could dramatically strengthen executive power.
“That question, in a normal sense, would already shake the legal foundation of the country: whether lower courts have the right to order nationwide injunctions.”, said Heidi Zhou-Castro.
Concerns were raised during arguments about the practical implications of eliminating nationwide injunctions. Some justices questioned whether requiring individual lawsuits in every jurisdiction would overwhelm the court system and leave citizens in different states with different constitutional rights. A ruling against national injunctions could create a patchwork system where birthright citizenship remains in states that have challenged Trump’s order but ends in states that haven’t mounted legal opposition.
Implications for American Identity
Outside the Supreme Court, demonstrators gathered to defend birthright citizenship as a cornerstone of American identity. Advocates argue that ending this constitutional right would fundamentally alter the national fabric of the United States and create a two-tiered system of citizenship. The court’s eventual ruling, which could take weeks to be released, may have profound implications for immigration policy, executive power, and American constitutional law for generations to come.
The justices’ decision will likely either directly address the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order or determine the proper scope of federal courts’ power to block policies nationwide. Both outcomes would have significant implications for the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches. With President Trump currently in the United Arab Emirates on diplomatic business, the constitutional showdown continues in Washington over one of the most fundamental questions of American identity.
