U.S. Supreme Court To Settle High-Stakes Battle Over President Trump’s New Bid To Restrict Birthright Citizenship Shaping The Future Of Immigration Law

Published on December 6, 2025

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, a significant legal challenge that questions the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. This directive, which aims to limit automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, could have far-reaching consequences for immigration policy and citizenship laws in the country. With lower courts blocking the order, the Supreme Court’s decision will determine whether this controversial move aligns with constitutional principles and the nation’s longstanding approach to birthright citizenship.

The Supreme Court has agreed to review President Donald Trump’s controversial directive to limit birthright citizenship, which challenges the interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This decision will have significant implications on the country’s immigration policy, potentially altering the long-standing understanding of birthright citizenship established by a 19th-century constitutional provision.

In a move to curb immigration, the Trump administration issued an executive order instructing U.S. agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. Lower courts swiftly blocked this order, ruling that it violated the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. However, the Justice Department appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case, with arguments expected later in the current term.

This legal battle began when several states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—along with individual plaintiffs filed lawsuits challenging the directive. The lower courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, arguing that the policy contradicted both the 14th Amendment and the federal law ensuring birthright citizenship. The U.S. District Court in New Hampshire even allowed a nationwide class-action lawsuit to proceed, effectively blocking the executive order on a national level.

The case has already been heard in lower courts, with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals siding with the states. In the face of these setbacks, the Trump administration sought the intervention of the Supreme Court to resolve the matter definitively. The Court’s decision to take up the case before a federal appeals court could review it further highlights the significance of the legal divide and the urgent need for a national resolution.

At the heart of the case is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which states that all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are U.S. citizens. Ratified in 1868, the clause has historically been understood to guarantee birthright citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. However, the Trump administration argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should not be interpreted as simply being born in the U.S. Instead, they assert that only children born to parents who have primary allegiance to the United States—such as citizens and legal permanent residents—should automatically receive citizenship. This interpretation could potentially exclude children born to non-citizen immigrants who are in the U.S. temporarily, including those on student or work visas.

The Trump administration’s position aligns with a narrower reading of the 14th Amendment, suggesting that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires a level of permanent, lawful residency. The administration argues that parents must have “lawful domicile,” meaning they are lawfully residing in the U.S. with the intent to remain. In contrast, critics point to a well-established precedent in U.S. law, citing the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which upheld the principle of birthright citizenship. In that case, the Court ruled that children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents were entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

The challengers in this case, including civil rights organizations like the ACLU, argue that Trump’s executive order contradicts this precedent and the statutory law passed by Congress in 1940, which was later incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. This law codified the understanding that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

The administration’s argument also hinges on the idea of “birth tourism,” a term used to describe the practice of foreigners traveling to the U.S. to give birth so their children can automatically receive U.S. citizenship. The Trump administration contends that birthright citizenship has created incentives for illegal immigration, exacerbating the strain on immigration systems and contributing to the phenomenon of birth tourism.

As the case moves to the Supreme Court, the stakes are high. A ruling in favor of the Trump administration could redefine the meaning of birthright citizenship and restrict the automatic grant of citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. Such a decision would overturn decades of legal precedent and could have far-reaching implications for immigration law in the U.S.

The Court’s decision will likely come by the end of June, and the justices will hear arguments on the matter during their current term. The case is expected to spark significant debate over the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the future of immigration policy in the U.S. While the administration maintains that its actions are necessary for the security of the nation, its critics argue that such a move would undermine the core principles of American citizenship and the rights afforded to all individuals born in the country.

Regardless of the outcome, this case represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing national discussion about immigration and citizenship. The Supreme Court’s ruling could set a precedent that shapes the future of birthright citizenship and how the U.S. defines its relationship with non-citizens and immigrants.