The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a high-stakes challenge to President Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship, setting up one of the most consequential constitutional battles of his renewed presidency.
The justices said in an unsigned order that they would take up a lawsuit backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and several civil rights groups, marking the first time the Court will directly weigh the legality of Trump’s executive order. Arguments are expected this term, with a ruling likely by summer.
The executive order — signed on Trump’s first day back in the White House — seeks to end automatic U.S. citizenship for children born on American soil unless at least one parent holds permanent legal status. The policy represents a sweeping reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, whose Citizenship Clause has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States.
A Year of Legal Roadblocks
Nearly a year into Trump’s second presidency, the order has not taken effect. Roughly a dozen lawsuits were filed within weeks of the policy’s announcement, and every federal judge to review the measure so far has concluded that it violates the Constitution.
This summer, several courts issued nationwide blocks on the policy, prompting the administration to seek Supreme Court intervention. In its petition, the administration argued that existing precedents give presidents broad authority over immigration and border security.
“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the President and his Administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote, calling the rulings an unauthorized grant of citizenship “to hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”
A Direct Challenge to a Long-Standing Interpretation
The case centers on the 14th Amendment’s declaration that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Courts have historically interpreted that language broadly, recognizing only narrow exceptions — including children of foreign diplomats and, historically, Native Americans before Congress extended citizenship by statute.
Trump’s executive order asserts a far narrower reading of the clause and argues that Congress, through a related citizenship statute, left room for the executive branch to define who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
The Supreme Court is now poised to decide not only whether the president’s restrictions violate the Constitution, but also whether they clash with the federal law codifying the traditional view.
Earlier Clash Over Nationwide Injunctions
The Court briefly touched the issue last term when the administration asked it to stop lower courts from halting the policy nationwide. In a 6–3 ruling, the justices limited the ability of judges to issue universal injunctions but did not address the underlying legality of Trump’s order.
That ruling proved temporary relief for the White House. In July, a federal judge in New Hampshire certified a provisional class of all babies who could be affected by the policy and again blocked enforcement, this time under procedures explicitly allowed by the Supreme Court. That lawsuit, also supported by the ACLU, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Democracy Defenders Fund, and the Asian Law Caucus, is the case the Court agreed to review.
Advocates Warn Against Rewriting the Constitution
Civil liberties groups urged the justices not to intervene, arguing the constitutional question is already settled.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang said in a statement.
“For over 150 years, it has been the law and our national tradition that everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen from birth,” she said. “The federal courts have unanimously held that President Trump’s executive order is contrary to the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision from 1898, and a law enacted by Congress. We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
What Comes Next
The case now promises to test the Court’s approach to presidential power, immigration policy, and constitutional interpretation — all against the backdrop of a politically charged national debate.
%20(1)%20(1)%20(1).png)
