The case asks whether President Donald Trump can restrict citizenship for children born in the United States when neither parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Supreme Court is expected to rule Tuesday on President Donald Trump’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship, a major immigration policy dispute involving the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
The case centers on Trump’s executive order directing federal agencies not to recognize U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States if neither parent is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident.
A lower court blocked the order, and challengers argue it violates the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which grants citizenship to people born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Tuesday is the final day of rulings for the Supreme Court’s current term, which began in October.
Trump issued the order last year on his first day back in office as part of a broader immigration crackdown targeting both illegal and legal immigration. Critics have accused the administration of using immigration policy in a discriminatory way, while the administration argues it is enforcing the proper constitutional limits of citizenship.
The ruling comes just ahead of July 4, when the United States will mark the 250th anniversary of its founding.
Some experts have estimated that Trump’s directive could affect the legal status of as many as 250,000 babies born each year. They have also warned that millions of families could face new burdens proving the citizenship status of newborn children.
The case before the Supreme Court involves a class-action lawsuit filed in New Hampshire by parents and children whose citizenship would be threatened by the order.
The 14th Amendment has long been interpreted to guarantee citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, with limited exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats or members of an enemy occupying force.
The Citizenship Clause states: “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 argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means birth on U.S. soil alone is not enough to confer citizenship. Administration lawyers say the clause excludes children of immigrants in the country illegally, as well as children of people lawfully but temporarily present, including students and work visa holders.
The administration says citizenship at birth should apply only to children whose parents have “primary allegiance” to the United States, including citizens and lawful permanent residents.
Government lawyers have described that allegiance as tied to “lawful domicile,” which they define as lawful, permanent residence in the country with intent to remain.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 1. Trump became the first sitting president to attend arguments before the high court, though he left midway through the proceeding.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, argued that broad birthright citizenship has encouraged “birth tourism,” in which foreigners travel to the United States to give birth so their children can obtain citizenship.
Sauer said “uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades” to secure U.S. citizenship for their children. When asked how serious the issue had become, Sauer cited media reports and acknowledged that “no one knows for sure.”
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and after the abolition of slavery. It overturned the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision, which held that people of African descent could not be U.S. citizens.
During arguments, Sauer said the Citizenship Clause was adopted “to grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves and their children, whose allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile here.”
Opponents of Trump’s order argue that the Supreme Court settled the meaning of birthright citizenship in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the court recognized citizenship for a man born in the United States to foreign national parents.
The administration argues that Wong Kim Ark supports Trump’s position because Wong’s parents had permanent domicile and residence in the United States when he was born.
Some justices appeared skeptical of that argument during oral arguments. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch told Sauer, “Well, I’m not sure how much you want to rely on Wong Kim Ark.”
Trump has long argued that birthright citizenship has been abused.
“Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the ‘SUCKERS’ that we are!” Trump wrote on social media last year.
“But the drug cartels love it! We are, for the sake of being politically correct, a STUPID Country but, in actuality, this is the exact opposite of being politically correct, and it is yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America,” he wrote.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante of Concord, New Hampshire, allowed the case challenging Trump’s order to proceed as a class action in July 2025, enabling a nationwide block on the policy.
The Supreme Court previously gave Trump a partial victory in the broader birthright citizenship fight when it restricted the power of federal judges to block presidential policies nationwide. That ruling did not decide whether Trump’s directive itself was lawful.
The court’s conservative majority has backed Trump in several major immigration cases since his return to office.
On June 25, the court allowed the administration to strip hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants of humanitarian protections from deportation. That same day, the court backed the government’s authority to turn away asylum seekers when officials determine border crossings are too overburdened to process additional claims.
The court has also allowed several Trump immigration measures to proceed on an interim basis while legal challenges continue, including expanded deportation policies, limits on humanitarian protections and removals to countries where migrants have no ties.
The court has not ruled for Trump in every major dispute. In February, it struck down sweeping tariffs pursued under an emergency law. On Monday, it declined to allow Trump to fire Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook.
The birthright citizenship ruling is expected to be one of the most consequential immigration decisions of the term, with potentially sweeping effects on citizenship, federal authority and the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Original article
Comments