Supreme Court Deliberates: Future of Birthright Citizenship and 14th Amendment

Large neoclassical building with illuminated columns at dusk

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether a federal judge has the power to block President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship nationwide, potentially transforming how America defines who is entitled to citizenship at birth.

Quick Takes

  • The case challenges President Trump’s executive order restricting automatic citizenship for babies born to parents who entered the U.S. illegally or are on temporary visas
  • While portrayed as a birthright citizenship case, the legal question focuses more narrowly on nationwide injunctions and federal judges’ authority
  • The 14th Amendment has historically guaranteed citizenship to all born on U.S. soil, a principle upheld by the Supreme Court 127 years ago
  • Three federal judges have already declared Trump’s order “blatantly unconstitutional”
  • A decision is expected by late June or early July, with significant implications for immigration policy

A Constitutional Showdown Over Citizenship

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could reshape American citizenship rights. At issue is President Trump’s executive order barring automatic citizenship for babies born to parents who entered the country illegally or who are on temporary visas. This challenge has drawn comparisons to the landmark Dobbs case, though with critical differences. While Dobbs overturned precedent, this case requires the Court to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The case has reached the Supreme Court after federal judges ruled against Trump’s order, with three judges collectively declaring it “blatantly unconstitutional.” The administration’s appeal doesn’t directly ask the Court to reconsider birthright citizenship but instead challenges the authority of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions that can halt presidential policies across the entire country. This procedural question could have far-reaching consequences beyond immigration policy.

Legal History and Current Challenges

Birthright citizenship has a long legal foundation in America. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the principle 127 years ago, and Congress codified it into statute in 1940. Legal scholars consider challenges to this principle fringe theories, with the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly written to overturn the infamous Dred Scott decision, which had denied citizenship to Black Americans. The amendment’s text deliberately created a bright-line rule that automatically grants citizenship to virtually everyone born on American soil.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” states The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution

Critics of birthright citizenship, however, argue that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of illegal immigrants. Some conservative commentators have called it “a nutty policy we’re probably stuck with.” The Trump administration’s legal team contends that federal judges have overstepped their authority by blocking executive actions nationwide rather than limiting rulings to the specific plaintiffs in a case. This argument against nationwide injunctions has found support across party lines, as presidents from both parties have faced similar judicial obstacles.

Real-World Implications

Beyond the constitutional and procedural questions lie real-world concerns for families. Asylum seekers and legal immigrants on temporary visas worry about their children’s citizenship status. If the Supreme Court were to address the birthright citizenship question directly and rule in favor of Trump’s position, it could create a new class of stateless children in America. The policy change would particularly affect the approximately 300,000 babies born annually to non-citizen parents in the United States.

“blatantly unconstitutional” expressed three federal judge

The nationwide injunction issue has divided legal experts. Supporters argue these injunctions prevent the enforcement of potentially unconstitutional policies and ensure uniform application of law across the country. Critics contend they give too much power to individual district judges, allowing a single judge to effectively set national policy. The Supreme Court’s ruling could significantly affect how federal courts handle challenges to executive actions and congressional legislation in the future, regardless of which party controls the White House.

Sources:

  1. A once-fringe theory on birthright citizenship comes to the Supreme Court
  2. Supreme Court to Hear Case on Birthright Citizenship — and Judicial Power

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR