In a major development, the U.S. Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear a challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. The case is considered one of the most significant immigration disputes to reach the Court in decades.
[read more]
The justices agreed to review the issue after multiple lower courts blocked the administration from implementing the order. The policy states that children born in the United States to noncitizen parents—whether unlawfully present or in the country only temporarily—are not automatically entitled to U.S. citizenship.
Trump signed the order on his first day back in office in January, characterizing it as a correction to what he says is a long-standing misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. The directive argues that the Citizenship Clause has been improperly expanded over time by judicial and bureaucratic decisions.
The order instructs federal agencies not to issue or recognize any documents conferring citizenship on a person born in the U.S. whose mother lacked lawful status at the time of birth and whose father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident.
According to the administration, the wording “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment excludes children of foreign nationals who retain allegiance to another country or who are in the United States without legal authorization.
The order also argues that the Amendment has never been interpreted to grant citizenship to everyone born on U.S. soil, asserting that the jurisdiction requirement has meaningful limits.
This interpretation directly challenges the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that a child born in the U.S. to legally resident foreign parents is a citizen at birth. Trump’s legal team contends that the ruling does not apply to parents who lack lawful status.
Federal courts have repeatedly halted enforcement of the order since its issuance. In February, Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts ruled that denying citizenship at birth—even temporarily—could cause lasting harm. Another federal judge in Seattle had earlier issued a nationwide injunction.
A coalition of Democratic-led states has sued to block the policy, arguing that it contradicts both the text and historical understanding of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.
The administration appealed after a New Hampshire court certified a nationwide class of families affected by the order and concluded that the policy was likely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also declined to act on a separate appeal involving four states where the 9th Circuit ruled against the administration.
Oral arguments are expected early next year, with a ruling likely by late June or early July. The decision could have major political implications ahead of the 2026 election season, and if the policy is upheld, it would represent the most sweeping change to U.S. citizenship law since the Reconstruction era.[/read]