The nation’s highest court found itself tangled in a fierce legal storm Thursday, debating former President Trump’s sweeping attempt to restrict automatic citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil. At stake is a seismic shift in how the Constitution’s 14th Amendment — a cornerstone of American identity — has been understood for over a century.
Trump’s executive order, unleashed on his first day back in office, directs federal agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is an American citizen or a lawful permanent resident. This move, targeting thousands of newborns every year, upends the traditional birthright rule that has granted citizenship to nearly anyone born in the country.
The Supreme Court justices, holding a 6-3 conservative majority, appeared eager to rein in the power of lower courts issuing broad, nationwide injunctions blocking the policy. But none openly backed Trump’s order itself. The liberal wing of the court warned it conflicts with both the Constitution and long-standing judicial precedent.
Central to the debate was whether lower courts should be allowed to halt the policy across the entire country or only for specific plaintiffs. The Trump administration argued that nationwide injunctions have become a judicial “pathology” and pushed for the court to side-step the legal merits entirely, insisting the policy be allowed while the courts hash out details.
Liberal justices voiced deep concerns about the order’s human cost — potentially rendering over 150,000 U.S.-born children stateless each year, stripping them of citizenship and access to government benefits. One justice likened the order’s reach to an unprecedented government action, such as confiscating all guns despite constitutional protections.
The legal battle also revived history, as attorneys recalled a landmark 1898 Supreme Court decision confirming birthright citizenship, which the administration tries to narrow. They framed the 14th Amendment as originally designed to protect children of former slaves, not undocumented or temporary immigrants.
The case may drag on, with some justices hesitant to dive deep into the underlying constitutional questions without more briefing. Others suggested requiring collective lawsuits for broader relief, shifting how nationwide legal challenges might proceed in the future.
For now, uncertainty reigns over the fate of birthright citizenship, with the Supreme Court poised between preserving a fundamental constitutional guarantee or enabling a historic reinterpretation of American nationality.
