Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a high-stakes legal challenge to former President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to restrict birthright citizenship for children born in the United States.

The case, Trump v. Barbara, centers on an executive order issued in early 2025 that would deny U.S. citizenship to babies born in the country unless at least one of their parents is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order would effectively exclude children born to parents on temporary visas, undocumented immigrants, or those whose immigration status is not permanent at the time of birth.

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU affiliates in New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts, the Legal Defense Fund, the Asian Law Caucus, and Democracy Defenders Fund brought the lawsuit as a nationwide class action on behalf of infants who would be affected by the policy. Lower federal courts have repeatedly blocked the order, ruling that it violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, longstanding Supreme Court precedent, and federal immigration law.

What the Order Would Change

Birthright citizenship is the principle that every person born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen, a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Trump’s executive order reinterprets the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude children whose parents are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Under the order, the government would no longer issue or accept documentation of citizenship for children born in the U.S. if:

• The mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth; or
• The mother’s presence was lawful but temporary (such as on a student or work visa) and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Critics argue that this interpretation contradicts more than a century of legal precedent, including the 1898 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents are citizens if they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Lower Courts Block the Order

In the Barbara case, a federal district court in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction blocking the executive order nationwide. The court found that the order likely violates the 14th Amendment and federal law, and that the plaintiffs—newborn U.S. citizens and their families—would suffer irreparable harm if the policy took effect.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction, rejecting the administration’s argument that the president has broad authority to redefine citizenship. The appeals court emphasized that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a constitutional guarantee, not a policy that can be unilaterally altered by executive order.

Similar challenges in other circuits, including Trump v. CASA, Inc., have also resulted in universal injunctions blocking the order, with courts concluding that the executive action conflicts with both the Constitution and the Nationality Act of 1940.

Supreme Court Steps In

By granting review in Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court will now decide whether the president can, through executive order, effectively narrow the scope of birthright citizenship as defined by the 14th Amendment. The Court’s decision will have profound implications for millions of people born in the U.S. to immigrant parents and could reshape the legal understanding of citizenship in America.

Legal experts say the case is among the most consequential immigration and constitutional law disputes in decades. If the Court upholds the order, it could open the door to widespread denaturalization and create a new class of stateless or non-citizen children born on U.S. soil. If the Court strikes it down, it would reaffirm that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right that cannot be overridden by presidential fiat.

Broader Implications

The case also raises questions about the limits of executive power in immigration and citizenship matters. The plaintiffs argue that only Congress, through legislation, or the people, through a constitutional amendment, can alter the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause—not a president acting alone.

“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” said Morenike Fajana, senior counsel at the Legal Defense Fund. “The Trump administration’s attempts to unilaterally rewrite the 14th Amendment—an essential Reconstruction-era measure that granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., including formerly enslaved people—will not stand. We look forward to going before the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutional promise of citizenship for all babies born in America.”

Oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara are expected in the spring of 2026, with a decision likely by June 2026. The outcome will shape not only the future of birthright citizenship but also the balance of power between the executive branch and the Constitution itself.