image credit: Getty Images
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in a pivotal case concerning President Donald Trump’s attempt to curtail birthright citizenship. Although the Court declined to immediately implement the administration’s policy, it has scheduled oral arguments for May 15.
Trump’s request, framed as a “modest” effort to limit the reach of lower court rulings, has drawn considerable attention due to its sweeping implications. If successful, the case could pave the way for enforcement of a policy that one federal judge called “blatantly unconstitutional.”
This challenge marks a significant moment in the national debate over the 14th Amendment, which has long been interpreted to guarantee U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil. Trump, now in his second term, signed an executive order to deny citizenship recognition to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. The move immediately sparked legal challenges and was quickly blocked by federal courts.
Though the administration emphasized procedural concerns—specifically, whether district courts should be allowed to issue nationwide injunctions—legal analysts say the implications are far more profound. Georgetown law professor and CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck argued that the administration is using a technical issue to secure broad enforcement of a policy without directly confronting its constitutionality.
The Supreme Court has previously declined to weigh in on the broader question of nationwide injunctions in less politically charged cases. This time, however, it chose to intervene in a context laden with constitutional significance and historical precedent.
Opponents of Trump’s order argue that a fragmented approach to citizenship would create chaos, with differing rules across states. They contend that if any matter warrants a national injunction, it is one that impacts citizenship rights—a cornerstone of American identity.
The legal foundation for birthright citizenship stems from the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the Court ruled that individuals born on U.S. soil are citizens, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. While the modern Supreme Court has not explicitly revisited this ruling, some conservative legal thinkers argue that the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause of the 14th Amendment excludes children of undocumented immigrants.
Trump has repeatedly criticized lower courts for blocking his policies, and this case is no exception. Since issuing the order, federal judges in Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts—all nominated by presidents from both major parties—have issued preliminary injunctions preventing enforcement. Appeals courts in the 9th and 4th Circuits upheld these rulings.
In one particularly pointed statement, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour of Seattle—a Reagan appointee—called the policy’s legal flaws “crystal clear.” He and other judges emphasized that allowing different citizenship standards across the country would be untenable.
The Biden administration’s Justice Department has echoed past complaints from both Democratic and Republican leaders, arguing that lower courts often exceed their authority by issuing sweeping injunctions that go far beyond the plaintiffs involved.
Trump appealed the three injunctions to the Supreme Court on March 13. While the Court did not explain its decision to hear the case, no justices publicly dissented. The outcome could determine not only the future of birthright citizenship but also set a precedent for the scope of judicial authority nationwide.
