The US Supreme Court is deliberating a case that could fundamentally alter the definition of American citizenship, as it weighs President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants and those in the US on temporary visas. The implications are vast: more than 150,000 newborns could be denied citizenship annually if the order is upheld, according to the plaintiffs challenging the directive, which includes Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and immigrant rights advocates.
At issue is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment , which states that all “persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are US citizens. Trump's administration argues this language does not extend to the children of immigrants whose presence is either unlawful or temporary, such as students or visa workers. This interpretation represents a stark departure from more than a century of legal precedent.
In oral arguments, Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the order by claiming the 14th Amendment was only intended to grant citizenship to the children of formerly enslaved people. When pressed by Justice Brett Kavanaugh on how the government would determine the citizenship of newborns under this policy, Sauer admitted, “We just don’t know.”
Justice Elena Kagan voiced concern over the lack of clarity and questioned why the administration was challenging a precedent so firmly rooted in history. “If one thinks that it's quite clear that the order is illegal, how does one get to that result in what time frame... without the possibility of a nationwide injunction?” she asked. Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared sceptical of Sauer’s assurance that the issue could work its way through the lower courts without disrupting the current system.
A challenge to a century-old precedent
The precedent in question is the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed citizenship for children born in the US regardless of their parents' immigration status. Wong, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was denied re-entry after a trip abroad. The court ruled in his favour, cementing the principle of jus soli citizenship by birth.
There are only a few exceptions to this principle: children of foreign diplomats, enemy occupiers, and those born in unincorporated US territories like American Samoa are not automatically granted citizenship. However, the Trump administration’s order, if upheld, would mark a radical expansion of these exceptions.
Critics warn that ending birthright citizenship could create a legal quagmire. New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum cautioned the court that such a change would lead to “unprecedented chaos,” creating a patchwork of legal statuses where children born on the same day in different states or even the same hospital might be treated differently. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called the administration’s stance “a catch-me-if-you-can kind of regime,” where families would be forced to sue to assert rights that should be automatic.
Protests have erupted outside the court as the case draws national attention. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined demonstrators, reading from the Constitution and defending the long-standing principle of birthright citizenship. “This is about birthright, it’s about citizenship, it’s about due process,” she said.
Legal scholars note that overturning Wong Kim Ark would likely require a constitutional amendment, not just an executive order. Yet the Trump administration has hinted at additional measures such as limiting short-term visas for pregnant travellers as another way to discourage births by non-citizens in the US.
If the court sides with Trump, it could restrict injunctions to only the named plaintiffs in the case, resulting in newborns across the country facing vastly different legal realities. In such a scenario, birth certificates might no longer suffice as proof of citizenship, creating uncertainty not just for immigrants, but for all Americans.
At issue is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment , which states that all “persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are US citizens. Trump's administration argues this language does not extend to the children of immigrants whose presence is either unlawful or temporary, such as students or visa workers. This interpretation represents a stark departure from more than a century of legal precedent.
In oral arguments, Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the order by claiming the 14th Amendment was only intended to grant citizenship to the children of formerly enslaved people. When pressed by Justice Brett Kavanaugh on how the government would determine the citizenship of newborns under this policy, Sauer admitted, “We just don’t know.”
Justice Elena Kagan voiced concern over the lack of clarity and questioned why the administration was challenging a precedent so firmly rooted in history. “If one thinks that it's quite clear that the order is illegal, how does one get to that result in what time frame... without the possibility of a nationwide injunction?” she asked. Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared sceptical of Sauer’s assurance that the issue could work its way through the lower courts without disrupting the current system.
A challenge to a century-old precedent
The precedent in question is the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed citizenship for children born in the US regardless of their parents' immigration status. Wong, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was denied re-entry after a trip abroad. The court ruled in his favour, cementing the principle of jus soli citizenship by birth.
There are only a few exceptions to this principle: children of foreign diplomats, enemy occupiers, and those born in unincorporated US territories like American Samoa are not automatically granted citizenship. However, the Trump administration’s order, if upheld, would mark a radical expansion of these exceptions.
Critics warn that ending birthright citizenship could create a legal quagmire. New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum cautioned the court that such a change would lead to “unprecedented chaos,” creating a patchwork of legal statuses where children born on the same day in different states or even the same hospital might be treated differently. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called the administration’s stance “a catch-me-if-you-can kind of regime,” where families would be forced to sue to assert rights that should be automatic.
Protests have erupted outside the court as the case draws national attention. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined demonstrators, reading from the Constitution and defending the long-standing principle of birthright citizenship. “This is about birthright, it’s about citizenship, it’s about due process,” she said.
Legal scholars note that overturning Wong Kim Ark would likely require a constitutional amendment, not just an executive order. Yet the Trump administration has hinted at additional measures such as limiting short-term visas for pregnant travellers as another way to discourage births by non-citizens in the US.
If the court sides with Trump, it could restrict injunctions to only the named plaintiffs in the case, resulting in newborns across the country facing vastly different legal realities. In such a scenario, birth certificates might no longer suffice as proof of citizenship, creating uncertainty not just for immigrants, but for all Americans.
You may also like
Justin Thomas leaves PGA Championship viewers speechless after dodging disaster
Man ''brutally assaults'' octogenarian in Kerala
Nathan Osman 'murdered': Everything we know about dad-of-four who went missing in Benidorm
CIBIL Score: Does a bad CIBIL score get fixed in 30 days? Loan takers must know this important thing..
'Nothing is achieved until it is achieved': Eddie Howe on Newcastle's hunt for UCL qualification
