Supreme Court weighs Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship

Supreme Court justices on Thursday expressed concerns about President Donald Trump’s attempt to enforce his executive order limiting birthright citizenship as legal challenges progress through the courts.

Trump signed an executive order on his first day back in office directing federal agencies to refuse citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are not American citizens or lawful permanent residents. The order was quickly blocked by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state, who all issued nationwide injunctions preventing its implementation.

Trump’s directive seeks to reinterpret the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which states that all “persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Since the amendment’s ratification in 1868, it has been understood to grant citizenship to almost anyone born on U.S. soil.

Dozens of states and cities, along with immigrant advocacy groups and pregnant women, filed lawsuits challenging the order, warning it would affect approximately 150,000 children born each year to parents without legal permanent resident status.

Thursday’s more than two-hour argument focused primarily on whether nationwide injunctions blocking the policy should be limited in scope rather than the constitutionality of Trump’s order itself. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that such sweeping injunctions exceed judicial power, claiming they “operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere while the plaintiffs can win anywhere.”

New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum countered that limiting the injunction would create practical problems. “There would be chaos on the ground where people’s citizenship turns on and off when you cross state lines,” he argued, noting that New Jersey alone handles 6,000 babies annually born elsewhere whose citizenship status would need verification.

Conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett reportedly appeared sympathetic to arguments against piecemeal implementation.

The case carries significant implications for both immigration policy and judicial authority. If the Supreme Court restricts nationwide injunctions, it could help the administration implement other executive actions that have been blocked by lower courts.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that Trump’s order violates four Supreme Court precedents, including the landmark 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which established that children born to non-citizen parents on U.S. soil are entitled to citizenship. Asian American civil rights organizations have emphasized this precedent’s historical importance, with Advancing Justice – AAJC saying it “allowed the children of Asian immigrants to become citizens in the late 19th century despite widespread racial animus.”

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision by early summer, potentially addressing the underlying constitutional question as well.