The U.S. Supreme Court is set to make a historic ruling that could reshape how American citizenship is granted to children born on U.S. soil. On Thursday, the Court will hear arguments in a high-stakes case involving former President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship.
Trump’s directive, signed on January 20—his first day back in office—seeks to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States unless at least one parent is either an American citizen or a lawful permanent resident. This challenges a long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”
The executive order immediately drew legal challenges. Federal judges in Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts quickly blocked the policy from taking effect, ruling that it likely violates constitutional protections. Now, Trump’s legal team is urging the Supreme Court to lift these nationwide injunctions and limit their reach to only the states and individuals who are directly involved in the lawsuits.
This case isn’t just about immigration policy—it could also redefine the power of federal judges. The Trump administration has argued that judges should not be allowed to issue nationwide injunctions that halt federal policies across the entire country. Instead, they propose that such rulings should apply only to the specific plaintiffs or states involved in the case.
If the Court sides with this view, it could pave the way for Trump’s citizenship policy to be implemented in the 28 states that did not join the lawsuit—at least temporarily.
Supporters of the policy say it targets “birth tourism” and discourages people from entering the country illegally to gain U.S. citizenship for their children. The Justice Department argues that individuals who are in the U.S. temporarily—such as international students or workers on visas—or those here illegally should not be granted the protections of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.
Critics, however, argue that Trump’s order is a direct attack on the Constitution. They warn that changing the interpretation of the 14th Amendment could set a dangerous precedent and potentially strip citizenship from thousands of U.S.-born children. They also highlight a landmark 1898 Supreme Court ruling—United States v. Wong Kim Ark—which affirmed that the children of non-citizens born on U.S. soil are indeed American citizens.
Universal injunctions have sparked controversy in recent years, with both Democratic and Republican administrations facing court-ordered barriers to their agendas. Yet, many legal experts believe that in cases with broad constitutional implications—like this one—such sweeping judicial actions are necessary.
As the conservative-leaning Supreme Court takes up this divisive issue, many await its decision with bated breath. With three justices appointed by Trump during his first term, the outcome could shape the future of immigration and civil rights in the United States for generations to come.
