The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear a critical case that could reshape the nation’s birthright citizenship policy. The justices are set to deliberate next month on former President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order, which seeks to restrict automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents. This policy is central to Trump’s tough stance on immigration, and its fate now lies with the highest court in the land.
In a move that has stirred legal debates, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on May 15 regarding the order, which Trump signed on his first day back in office. The administration’s request for a narrow ruling on the nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts was deferred, allowing the legal challenge to proceed. These injunctions, which originated from federal judges in Washington state, Massachusetts, and Maryland, blocked the implementation of the order while it is litigated.
The order’s provisions aim to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Critics, including a coalition of 22 Democratic state attorneys general, immigrant advocates, and expectant mothers, argue that it violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born on American soil.
Trump’s order is supported by his administration, which contends that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause does not extend to children born to parents who are in the U.S. illegally or on temporary visas. The Justice Department also argues that the ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) was misinterpreted, suggesting that it only applied to children of parents who had a permanent residence in the U.S.
The battle over Trump’s executive order also touches on the broader issue of “universal” injunctions, which have prevented the administration from enforcing several policies. The Trump administration’s legal team has argued that such nationwide injunctions—issued by lower courts—are overly broad and politicize judicial decisions. Critics, however, say they serve as an essential check on presidential overreach.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear this significant case, the outcome could redefine how the U.S. interprets birthright citizenship and influence future executive actions on immigration.
