- The Trump administration has sought Supreme Court intervention to lift nationwide injunctions blocking an executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. The order, signed on Trump’s first day, limits citizenship to those with at least one U.S. citizen or legal resident parent.
- Three federal judges issued injunctions, citing conflict with the 14th Amendment.
- A Supreme Court decision could impact birthright citizenship, federal court power and presidential authority in immigration enforcement.
Full Story
The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a nationwide pause on its executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and foreign residents. The legal battle could determine the future of a long-standing constitutional principle established by the 14th Amendment.
What is the Trump administration arguing?
Lawyers representing the Trump administration contended that lower courts overstepped their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions against the executive order. The administration argued that courts should only block policies for the specific plaintiffs involved in each lawsuit, rather than issuing broad rulings that apply nationwide.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris has urged the Supreme Court to narrow the injunctions, allowing the administration to enforce the policy in states that did not challenge it.
The Supreme Court justices can now weigh in on the increasing use of nationwide injunctions.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
How do courts interpret the 14th Amendment?
The 14th Amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
The Supreme Court upheld this principle in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The case affirmed that nearly all children born on U.S. soil automatically receive citizenship.
However, the Trump administration and some conservative legal scholars argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign residents.
Federal judges in lower courts have consistently rejected this interpretation. One judge called the executive order “blatantly unconstitutional.”
What happens if the Supreme Court sides with Trump?
If upheld, the policy would strip birthright citizenship from thousands of children born in the U.S. to non-citizen, non-resident parents.
The decision could create legal uncertainty, leading to challenges over immigration status, deportation proceedings and retroactive citizenship claims.
Critics warned that the move could disrupt the legal foundation of U.S. citizenship and create a precedent for future restrictions.
Advocates claim birthright citizenship has been misinterpreted, advocating its restriction to individuals with formal U.S. legal affiliations.
What are the broader implications?
Beyond birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court’s decision could reshape how lower courts handle nationwide injunctions. If the justices rule in favor of limiting injunctions, it could make it harder for courts to block presidential policies nationwide, affecting future challenges on immigration, healthcare and other federal actions.
The case is expected to be a major legal test for the Trump administration’s immigration policies, which have faced repeated legal challenges since the president took office.
The Supreme Court will first decide whether to limit the injunctions while the case progresses.
