On May 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a high-stakes case challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas. Signed on January 20, 2025, the order seeks to reinterpret the 14th Amendment, defying over a century of legal precedent. While the court’s focus was primarily on the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions blocking the policy, the debate inevitably touched on the constitutionality of Trump’s directive. This case, pitting executive power against judicial oversight and constitutional guarantees, has sparked protests, legal battles, and questions about America’s identity. As the nation awaits a ruling, the outcome could reshape citizenship laws and the balance of power in government.
The Executive Order and Its Legal Challenges
Trump’s executive order, issued on his first day in office, declares that children born in the U.S. are not automatically citizens unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. This move targets the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The clause, ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved people, was affirmed in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which granted citizenship to a U.S.-born child of Chinese immigrants.
The order faced immediate resistance. Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington issued nationwide injunctions, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.” Appeals courts upheld these blocks, prompting the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court. The administration argues that the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders, a view most legal scholars reject as a fringe theory.
The Supreme Court’s Debate
The May 15 hearing revealed a court divided not only on the injunctions but also on the order’s merits. The Trump administration, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argued that lower courts overstepped by issuing nationwide injunctions, which block the policy across the entire country. Sauer called for limiting these injunctions to the specific plaintiffs—22 states, immigrant rights groups, and individuals—allowing the administration to implement the order elsewhere. He proposed class-action lawsuits as an alternative, though critics noted their time-consuming nature.
Liberal justices, including Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, challenged Sauer’s stance. Kagan questioned how abolishing nationwide injunctions would avoid “chaos” if citizenship rules varied by state, while Jackson warned of a “Catch Me If You Can” justice system, where only those with resources could challenge the policy. Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized the order’s potential to render thousands of children stateless, citing estimates that over 150,000 newborns annually could be affected.
Conservative justices, holding a 6-3 majority, expressed skepticism about nationwide injunctions but hesitated to endorse Trump’s order outright. Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested class-action lawsuits could provide relief, while Amy Coney Barrett pressed Sauer on whether the administration might defy circuit court rulings. Chief Justice John Roberts indicated the court could review the order’s legality “expeditiously” but remained concerned about the injunctions’ scope.
Historical and Constitutional Context
The 14th Amendment, enacted post-Civil War, aimed to overturn the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship to African Americans. The 1898 Wong Kim Ark ruling solidified birthright citizenship (jus soli), distinguishing it from ancestry-based citizenship (jus sanguinis). The Trump administration’s claim—that the amendment was meant only for former slaves—contradicts this precedent and Congress’s 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which codified birthright citizenship.
Trump’s argument hinges on a narrow interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction,” a view promoted by figures like John Eastman of the Claremont Institute. Eastman, known for controversial election-related claims, argues that only children of parents with allegiance to the U.S. qualify. Legal scholars, including Ilya Somin of the Cato Institute, counter that this interpretation lacks historical or legal grounding, noting that undocumented immigrants are subject to U.S. laws, thus falling under the amendment’s jurisdiction.
Public and Political Reactions
Outside the Supreme Court, protesters rallied on May 15, chanting “Si Se Puede” and holding signs like “Citizenship is a Birthright.” Demonstrators, including immigrants like Hannah Liu, whose parents arrived on temporary visas, emphasized the personal stakes. Liu told AP News, “This is enshrined in the Constitution. I derive my citizenship through birthright.” Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined the protests, reading from the 14th Amendment to underscore its clarity.
Public sentiment is divided. A January 2025 AP-NORC poll found 51% of Americans oppose ending birthright citizenship, while 28% support it. On X, posts reflect the polarization, with some praising Trump’s push to curb “birth tourism” and others decrying the order as unconstitutional. One user noted, “The Supreme Court appears poised to REJECT Trump’s effort,” while another called it “MASSIVELY consequential.”
Politically, the issue has unified Democrats and some conservatives against the order. The ACLU, representing plaintiffs in New Hampshire, called it “wildly unconstitutional.” Even conservative groups like the Federalist Society have labeled birthright citizenship a settled matter. However, Trump’s base supports the move, seeing it as part of his broader immigration crackdown, which includes tariffs and deportation policies.
Broader Implications
The case’s outcome could redefine judicial and executive power. If the Supreme Court curbs nationwide injunctions, it may limit courts’ ability to check executive actions, enabling Trump to advance other policies, like mass deportations or federal agency cuts. A ruling against the order’s constitutionality could reaffirm the 14th Amendment’s scope but spark backlash from Trump’s supporters.
The policy’s practical impact is staggering. The Migration Policy Institute estimates 4.4 million U.S.-born children have at least one undocumented parent. Ending birthright citizenship could create a “stateless” class, ineligible for benefits and vulnerable to deportation. Experts warn this could increase the undocumented population by 2.7 million by 2045, contrary to Trump’s goals.
Looking Ahead
The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, including three Trump appointees, is expected to rule by late June or early July 2025. While the justices seem poised to limit nationwide injunctions, the order’s constitutionality faces an uphill battle, given unanimous lower court rejections. Legal experts like Saikrishna Prakash argue that only a constitutional amendment, requiring two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of states, could lawfully end birthright citizenship—a near-impossible feat in today’s climate.
As America grapples with this debate, the case underscores deeper questions about citizenship, identity, and power. For now, the nation waits, with protests and legal briefs reflecting a society at a crossroads.