Supreme Court to rule on Trump's attempt to restrict birthright citizenship

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to examine the legality of former President Donald Trump's order aimed at limiting birthright citizenship, a central element of his broader immigration crackdown. The case challenges a policy that would change the long-standing interpretation of a 19th-century constitutional amendment.

The Court will review an appeal from the Justice Department after lower courts blocked Trump's directive, which instructed federal agencies not to recognize the U.S. citizenship of children born in the country if their parents are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents, commonly known as green card holders.

Lower courts ruled that the policy violated the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to those born in the United States, and federal law codifying these rights. The case arose from class-action lawsuits filed by parents and children whose citizenship would be affected by the order.

Trump signed the executive order on January 20 during his second term, as part of a set of measures targeting both legal and illegal immigration. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, has long been understood to grant automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Its Citizenship Clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

The Trump administration contended that the clause does not extend to children of parents in the U.S. illegally or those temporarily residing in the country on visas. Officials argued that being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. requires lawful, permanent residence and a primary allegiance to the nation.

The administration also cited concerns about "birth tourism," claiming that granting citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. creates incentives for foreigners to enter the country solely to secure citizenship for their children.

The legal challenges included lawsuits from the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, as well as a separate case in New Hampshire representing a nationwide class. Earlier rulings from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and a federal district court allowed the lawsuits to proceed and blocked the policy nationally.

Opponents of Trump's order cited the 1898 Supreme Court decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents under the 14th Amendment. They also pointed to federal law codified in 1940 and included in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which reinforced this interpretation.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court addressed a related dispute over federal judges ability to issue broad injunctions against presidential policies. While a 6-3 ruling curtailed such judicial power, it did not settle the question of Trump's citizenship order, leaving open the possibility for class-action relief.

The Court has recently allowed several Trump-era immigration measures to proceed after lower court challenges, including the revocation of temporary protections for migrants, deportations, and enforcement operations.

Author: Grace Ellison