WASHINGTON, May 15 – The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a pivotal and politically charged case that could alter the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The President Donald Trump’s administration is attempting to limit birthright citizenship, a right historically granted to nearly all individuals born on American soil. The legal battle, scheduled for Thursday, could reshape how citizenship is determined in the United States.
At the heart of the dispute lies an executive order signed by Trump on January 20, the day he returned to office. The order aims to block citizenship for children born in the U.S. if neither parent holds American citizenship or legal permanent resident status. This marks a significant departure from how the Constitution’s 14th Amendment has traditionally been interpreted.
Federal judges in Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts quickly issued nationwide injunctions to block the order, arguing it likely violates the 14th Amendment. Their decisions are now under review by the nation’s highest court.
The case has gained national attention not only because of its potential impact on thousands of families but also due to the broader constitutional questions it raises. The Trump administration is asking the justices to rule not only on the policy itself but also on whether federal courts have the authority to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions.
Legal experts view the challenge as a dual test: one of constitutional interpretation and another of judicial limits. If the Court rules in favor of the administration, it could restrict the power of lower courts to halt federal policies across all 50 states—a decision that could permanently alter how authority is shared among the different branches of the U.S. government.
The Trump administration has argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment excludes children born to undocumented immigrants or those with temporary visas. According to their position, individuals who are in the country without permanent legal status do not fall under full U.S. jurisdiction, making their U.S-born children ineligible for automatic citizenship.
The Department of Justice also points to concerns over what it calls “birth tourism,” Where pregnant women are said to visit the United States with the primary goal of giving birth so their child can obtain American citizenship. They claim such practices exploit American immigration laws and create loopholes in the system.
On the other side of the argument are 22 Democratic-led states, along with individual plaintiffs and immigrant rights organizations, who insist the order is unconstitutional. They argue that the language of the 14th Amendment was intended to be inclusive, specifically granting citizenship to anyone born within U.S. territory, regardless of their parents’ status. This principle has been upheld for more than a century.
They also emphasize historical precedent. In the important 1898 ruling of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court decided that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents—who were not citizens—qualified as a U.S. citizen according to the 14th Amendment. This ruling has since served as the foundation for the modern understanding of birthright citizenship.
Critics of Trump’s executive order argue that dismantling this precedent would erode one of the most fundamental principles of American democracy: equal rights by birth. They claim it would not only sow fear and confusion among immigrant communities but also create a class of stateless individuals who, despite being born on American soil, would lack citizenship anywhere.
Additionally, opponents of the policy have voiced concern over the administration’s attempt to limit the scope of the court’s authority. By challenging the use of universal injunctions, the administration is pushing to restrict the ability of judges to halt federal actions across the entire country. Advocates argue that such injunctions are necessary when policies affect broad populations and infringe on constitutional rights.
The case comes before a conservative-leaning Supreme Court with a 6-3 majority, including three justices appointed during Trump’s first term. While some legal analysts believe this composition could favor the administration’s arguments, others note that the court has previously upheld the 14th Amendment’s broad protections in various contexts.
If the Supreme Court sides with Trump, it would allow his administration’s policy to be implemented in the 28 states that are not part of the lawsuit. Such a partial enforcement would create inconsistencies in citizenship rights across the country, possibly leading to further legal battles.
As the Court prepares to hear arguments, the outcome remains uncertain. However, the implications are far-reaching. This case is not simply about a single executive order—it is a test of the enduring power of constitutional protections and the evolving role of the judiciary in the American political landscape.
Whatever the final decision, it is likely to be a defining moment in the ongoing national debate over immigration, executive power, and the meaning of American citizenship in the 21st century.