The U.S. Supreme Court is currently grappling with former President Donald Trump’s attempt to broadly enforce an executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship, a fundamental aspect of American constitutional law. This directive, if implemented, would deny citizenship to thousands of babies born on U.S. soil each year whose parents are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. The court’s conservative majority appears inclined to limit the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions that have blocked Trump’s order so far. However, no justices have indicated support for the order itself, and liberal justices emphasize that it violates constitutional principles and long-standing legal precedents.
Trump signed the executive order on his first day back in office, directing federal agencies to refuse recognition of citizenship to U.S.-born children whose parents are neither citizens nor green card holders. This move marks a significant departure from the traditional interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has been understood to grant citizenship to nearly all persons born in the United States. The amendment’s citizenship clause states that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the country and the state where they reside.
Liberal justices, including Sonia Sotomayor, have voiced strong opposition, arguing that the order contradicts multiple Supreme Court rulings on citizenship rights. Sotomayor highlighted the real-world consequences of the order, pointing to the thousands of children who would be born stateless, without citizenship papers or eligibility for government benefits. Legal challenges from 22 states, immigrant rights groups, and other advocates emphasize that over 150,000 newborns annually would be affected if the order takes effect.
The case is unusual in that the administration is asking the Supreme Court to curtail the ability of lower courts to issue what are known as universal injunctions court orders that block enforcement of policies nationwide, rather than just in specific cases. The government’s position is that such broad injunctions represent a “pathology” in the judicial system and that relief should be limited only to those directly involved in the lawsuits or the states suing the administration. Some conservative justices have entertained the idea of requiring that claims seeking broader relief be consolidated into class-action lawsuits, although states’ lawyers argue that class-action procedures are often unavailable for state litigation.
Despite the conservative majority’s apparent willingness to restrict universal injunctions, many justices expressed hesitance to rule definitively on the constitutionality of Trump’s birthright citizenship directive without further briefing and argument. Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether the court should decide the underlying constitutional question without full consideration, while the government’s lawyers urged the court to enforce the directive despite the legal controversy surrounding it.
The administration contends that the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply to children of immigrants who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas. It argues that longstanding precedent interpreting the amendment to guarantee citizenship to nearly all U.S.-born children, including those of non-citizen parents, was wrongly applied and that the amendment’s original intent was to confer citizenship primarily to children of former slaves, not unauthorized immigrants or temporary visitors.
Opponents of the order point to a landmark 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which has been interpreted as affirming birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. They stress that the order conflicts with this precedent and the clear constitutional language of the 14th Amendment.
Justices also raised practical concerns about the immediate impact of the order if allowed to take effect. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked how hospitals and states would handle newborns denied citizenship. Meanwhile, liberal Justice Elena Kagan warned that without nationwide injunctions blocking the order, it could be years before the Supreme Court resolves the constitutional question, leaving affected children in legal limbo.
This case represents the first major Supreme Court challenge to a Trump administration policy since his return to office. It highlights the tension between executive authority, judicial oversight, and constitutional protections surrounding one of the most fundamental aspects of American citizenship law. The justices’ forthcoming decisions could reshape how birthright citizenship is applied and the judiciary’s role in halting or enabling sweeping executive actions.
