The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear oral arguments early next year in the legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s January 20 executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship. The long-standing rule currently grants citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.
[read more]
Trump’s order, which has not gone into effect due to ongoing litigation, would deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States if their parents are in the country illegally or are present only on a temporary basis.
Opponents of the policy argue that it violates the text of the Constitution as well as more than a century of Supreme Court precedent interpreting the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Reports from SCOTUSBlog noted that these arguments formed the core of the challenges brought before the Court.
The justices’ decision to take the case was listed among several orders released after their private conference. A second list, detailing the cases the Court has declined to hear, is expected on Monday.
Birthright citizenship is recognized by roughly 30 countries, including Canada and Mexico. The United States formally adopted it in 1868 with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, intended to define citizenship in the wake of the Civil War. The amendment states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens.
Its passage directly overturned the 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which held that Black Americans could not be citizens. The new constitutional provision reshaped the nation’s understanding of who belongs within the political community.
The Supreme Court last interpreted the scope of birthright citizenship in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In a 6–2 ruling, the Court held that Wong, born in California to Chinese noncitizen parents legally residing in the country, was indeed a U.S. citizen.
Writing for the majority, Justice Horace Gray explained that the 14th Amendment reaffirmed a long-standing principle of territorial birthright. Chief Justice Melville Fuller dissented, arguing that children of foreign nationals were not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Trump’s executive order immediately drew lawsuits across the country, something legal analysts say the administration anticipated. Judges in Seattle and Maryland issued temporary injunctions blocking its enforcement as challenges brought by advocacy groups and affected families move forward.
Separate from the citizenship dispute, the Supreme Court is also preparing to hear another case with major institutional implications. At issue is President Trump’s attempt to remove Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, whose seven-year term was designed to ensure agency independence.
Lower courts have ruled that Trump’s effort to oust Slaughter was unlawful, citing federal statutes that allow the removal of an FTC commissioner only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. The administration argues that such restrictions are unconstitutional and hinder the president’s authority over executive-branch personnel.
A ruling in Trump’s favor could dramatically expand presidential power by allowing the White House to dismiss members of independent agencies at will. Analysts note that such a decision could fundamentally reshape the structure and political neutrality of key federal institutions.[/read]