Highlights:
-
Supreme Court to determine the constitutional scope of birthright citizenship
-
Case arises from a Trump executive order seeking to end citizenship for children of undocumented or temporary-visa parents
-
Lower courts blocked the order; Supreme Court now taking up the central question
-
ACLU argues only Congress or a constitutional amendment can change the 14th Amendment
- Advertisement - -
Ruling could affect U.S. immigration policy and millions of families
The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a major case involving the constitutional meaning of birthright citizenship. The dispute centers on whether children born in the United States to parents who lack lawful immigration status or hold temporary visas are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The ruling will determine how the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” applies in the context of modern immigration law.
On his first day back in office this January, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born in these circumstances. Several federal courts quickly blocked the order, finding it unconstitutional. Those rulings held that the executive branch could not unilaterally alter longstanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court later determined that parts of those injunctions exceeded judicial authority, but it did not address the underlying question of citizenship. Now, the Court will take up the core issue directly. A hearing date has not yet been scheduled, and a decision is expected in the coming months.
Historical Interpretation of Birthright Citizenship
For nearly 160 years, the 14th Amendment has been widely understood to grant citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, with limited exceptions involving diplomats or foreign military personnel. Legal scholars have long interpreted the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to include people present in the United States regardless of immigration status. This understanding has shaped generations of policy and practice.
The Trump administration argues that the amendment was designed primarily to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved people and does not apply to the children of temporary visitors or individuals in the country without authorization. Administration officials say the jurisdiction clause excludes parents who lack permanent ties to the United States and therefore excludes their children from automatic citizenship.
Civil Rights Advocates Defend Established Citizenship Principles
Civil rights groups strongly reject the administration’s position. Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU, represents families challenging the executive order. She argues that no president can alter the Constitution’s citizenship guarantee. According to Wang, birthright citizenship has remained settled law for more than a century and a half. She says this principle has been central to American identity, stability, and equal treatment.
The ACLU’s position is that only Congress or a constitutional amendment—not the executive branch—can change the scope of citizenship under the 14th Amendment. This interpretation mirrors decades of judicial precedent and historical application.
Demographic Data and Projected Impact of Changing Citizenship Rules
The United States remains one of roughly 30 countries, most of them in the Americas, that offer birthright citizenship. Research from the Pew Research Center indicates that about 250,000 babies were born in 2016 to parents without legal status, a number that has fallen since its peak in 2007. By 2022, about 1.2 million American citizens had parents who were in the country without authorization.
A joint study from the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University warns that ending birthright citizenship could sharply increase the undocumented population. The analysis projects an additional 2.7 million people without legal status by 2045 and as many as 5.4 million by 2075 if birthright citizenship is eliminated.
