Supreme Court Set to Hear Birthright Citizenship Case

The Supreme Court is set to consider a case that could potentially redefine American citizenship.

Since President Donald Trump issued an executive order on his first day in office—aimed at revoking citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and those on temporary visas—this issue has escalated to the Supreme Court. Legal challenges quickly emerged.

The court hasn’t ruled directly on the executive order’s substance. However, a ruling from June 2025 related to a nationwide injunction against it offered some insights into the perspectives of certain judges. Specifically, in the case of United States v. CASA, the majority decided that the “universal injunction” used by some district judges likely exceeded federal court authority.

Following this ruling, left-leaning groups swiftly filed a class action suit representing immigrant infants who would be affected by Trump’s executive order. The administration’s petition has made its way to the Supreme Court, which is expected to hear the case in September after a lower court deemed the order unconstitutional.

Trump’s Position on Birthright Citizenship

The Trump administration argues that the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment was intended for “newly freed slaves and their descendants,” not for the offspring of temporary visitors or illegal immigrants. They contend that unauthorized immigrants shouldn’t qualify as “subjects to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.

“The primary purpose of the citizenship clause was to grant citizenship to freedmen and their children, who established loyalty over generations,” the administration’s brief articulated. On the other hand, they claim that aliens who merely pass through the U.S. or cross the border illegally lack those bonds of loyalty and haven’t earned citizenship for their children.

The government suggests that widespread acceptance of birthright citizenship promotes illegal immigration and “birth tourism.” Notably, the U.S. is one of roughly 30 countries offering such guarantees, with Britain having moved away from automatic birthright citizenship in 1983.

This year, it’s estimated that around 225,000 to 250,000 children will be born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, and an additional 70,000 to temporary immigrants, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

Opponents’ Arguments

Those opposing the administration’s stance claim that Trump’s order represents a “fundamental rewrite” of the citizenship clause.

These challengers, supported by organizations like the ACLU and NAACP, argue that the government seeks to significantly alter the constitutional foundations of the nation. They point out that this order could impact tens of thousands of children born each month, potentially tearing families apart.

The clash here centers on how historical case law and British tradition influence views on citizenship. The Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark confirmed that children born to resident aliens are U.S. citizens, which was a pivotal case affirming the notion that birthright citizenship prevails regardless of parents’ nationality or immigration status.

While this case established a broad understanding, the government maintains it didn’t specifically address the status of children born to illegal or temporary residents.

The administration contends that Wong Kim Ark involved parents who had “permanent residence and domicile” in the U.S. and that the details of their residency were integral to the legal analysis in the case.

Interestingly, opinions vary among states, with many led by Democratic attorney generals opposing Trump’s order, while those led by Republicans tend to support it. Recent discussions and comments among lawmakers echo the sentiment that increasing illegal immigration is straining the country’s resources.

Public Sentiment and Future Implications

Trump’s comments about the judicial system indicate that a negative ruling may not be well-received, particularly given his earlier frustrations with the courts. He has voiced concerns about the U.S. being perceived as naive for “selling citizenship.”

During previous hearings, several justices hinted that they believe birthright citizenship is deeply rooted in legal precedent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that proving the constitutionality of the order could prove “impossible,” given legal texts and historical precedents.