Supreme Court to Hear Case on Birthright Citizenship This Week

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on April 1 in the challenge to President Donald Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship.

Objective Facts

The case, Trump v. Barbara, centers around President Donald Trump's Jan. 20, 2025, executive order that denies birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. after Feb. 19, 2025, whose parents are either illegally present or temporary residents of the United States. Most of the court's arguments this week will deal with the history of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, which makes clear that "all persons born" in the United States who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens. Trump appealed both rulings to the Supreme Court, but the justices agreed to hear arguments in only the New Hampshire case. A decision is expected by the end of June. The April 1 argument will be the first time that the justices will officially consider the legality of Trump's order.

Left-Leaning Perspective

U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin and U.S. Senator Jacky Rosen led a group of 216 House and Senate Democrats in filing a bicameral amicus brief in Trump v. Barbara. The Democratic lawmakers argue that President Donald Trump's week-one executive order to strip the guarantee of citizenship provided to children born in America violates the Constitution and over a century of Supreme Court rulings, as well as laws enacted by Congress. As the Trump administration's "cruel and reckless immigration policy" continues to inflict chaos on communities across the country, the lawmakers affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment provides Congress with authority to enforce the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship. The lawmakers argued that the administration's interpretation of birthright citizenship is legally incoherent, outlining how the order would affect the children of asylum seekers and warning that 1.8 million U.S. citizens born to two unauthorized parents could be at risk of retroactively losing their citizenship. The lawmakers continued: "This incoherence is all the more concerning because—should the Administration prevail in this litigation—millions of Americans will suddenly no longer be citizens." If the court sides with Trump, the damage will ripple far beyond undocumented immigrants. It will affect legal visa holders, green-card holders and even U.S. citizens. It would also create an underclass of American-born children, some of whom would become stateless. Left outlets also emphasize practical concerns: If allowed to take effect, the policy would create "a tidal wave of legal confusion and chaos." "This is the problem with trying to change hundreds of years of the constitutional text and precedent with what is essentially a memo."

Right-Leaning Perspective

On April 1, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on President Trump's Executive Order 14160, ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. In the decades-old debate over immigration, the issue of birthright citizenship stands out as the most contentious. Current law on citizenship is based on interpretations of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says "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." Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee argued that granting citizen status to children born in the U.S. to parents who are here illegally or who participated in birth tourism was a "dramatic departure" from how other countries understand citizenship. "Under that interpretation, citizenship is devoid of connection to the American people," said Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt. In its brief on the merits, the Trump administration insists that the executive order simply "restores the original meaning" of the citizenship clause. "Birth tourism is essentially an industry that provides concierge service at every step of the way for a foreign national, in this case China, to pay the firm roughly $100,000, they will transport them to the United States, arrange medical care, arrange citizenship for the child," according to one Trump administration supporter. "And as soon as the child is old enough to travel, they will return back to China."

Deep Dive

The Supreme Court's April 1 oral arguments will hinge fundamentally on historical interpretation of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause. The constitutional provision at the center of the case, known as the citizenship clause, is part of the 14th Amendment, which was added to the Constitution in 1868. The clause confers citizenship on anyone "born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It was intended to overrule the Supreme Court's notorious 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, the administration has said, not people temporarily in the country illegally. Yet Justice Horace Gray explained that although the "main purpose" of the 14th Amendment had been to establish the citizenship of Black people, including former enslaved persons born in the United States, the amendment applies more broadly and is not restricted "by color or race." The left's core strength lies in precedent and textual stability: The long-held understanding of Wong Kim Ark's majority opinion is cited by the ACLU as a factor controlling the case. "The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens," Gray wrote in 1898. The right's weakness in this argument is that experts dispute their historical reading—experts on Native American law say the Elk v. Wilkins ruling has no bearing on whether the children of immigrants without permanent legal status can be denied birthright citizenship. Meanwhile, the right's originalist argument about congressional intent is challenged by modern evidence: the citizenship clause was ratified to confirm—not change—this aspect of existing law, meaning the framers likely intended broad application, not restriction. What remains unresolved and consequential: If the Trump administration prevails, all parents, including U.S. citizens and green card holders, would have to produce evidence of their own citizenship or immigration status at the time of their child's birth before that child could be recognized as a citizen. That is a burden millions of Americans cannot meet. A recent survey by the Brennan Center for Justice found that at least 3.8 million Americans have no document proving their citizenship — no birth certificate, passport or naturalization certificate. Under Trump's order, if these people have children, they cannot establish their citizenship. The court's composition suggests a conservative majority, though Justice Kavanaugh regularly sides with the administration, and he was in dissent when the court struck down Trump's emergency tariffs earlier this year, indicating he may not be a reliable vote for the administration on every issue.

OBJ SPEAKING

← Daily BriefAbout

Supreme Court to Hear Case on Birthright Citizenship This Week

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on April 1 in the challenge to President Donald Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship.

Apr 1, 2026· Updated Mar 30, 2026
What's Going On

The case, Trump v. Barbara, centers around President Donald Trump's Jan. 20, 2025, executive order that denies birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. after Feb. 19, 2025, whose parents are either illegally present or temporary residents of the United States. Most of the court's arguments this week will deal with the history of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, which makes clear that "all persons born" in the United States who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens. Trump appealed both rulings to the Supreme Court, but the justices agreed to hear arguments in only the New Hampshire case. A decision is expected by the end of June. The April 1 argument will be the first time that the justices will officially consider the legality of Trump's order.

Left says: Democratic lawmakers argue that President Donald Trump's week-one executive order to strip the guarantee of citizenship provided to children born in America violates the Constitution and over a century of Supreme Court rulings, as well as laws enacted by the Congress. The President now seeks to attain his goals by unilateral executive fiat. Rather than trying to persuade Congress to exercise its authority to amend or repeal the INA, he seeks to evade that process with an unconstitutional power grab.
Right says: Drafters and sponsors of both were clear that their intent was to grant citizenship to those owing no allegiance to a foreign power. Only since the court handed down a landmark precedent upholding the idea of birthright citizenship in 1898, the government says, has a "latter-day misconception" of the clause's scope taken hold, and it has "incentivized illegal entry into the United States and encouraged 'birth tourists' to travel to the United States solely to acquire citizenship for their children."
✓ Common Ground
Written arguments from both Trump and the groups challenging the policy focus heavily on what the framers meant by "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Both sides agree this phrase is the interpretive crux, though they disagree profoundly on its meaning.
Several voices on both sides acknowledge the scale of potential consequences: The stakes are high, and if the court sides with Trump, the damage will ripple far beyond undocumented immigrants.
There appears to be shared recognition that Justice Brett Kavanaugh's earlier questions about how the executive order would be implemented—asking whether hospitals would change their processing, whether state governments would do something different, and how federal officials would determine citizenship—represent genuine practical concerns that remain largely unanswered.
Both perspectives acknowledge the 14th Amendment was intended to overrule the Supreme Court's notorious 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, though they dispute what this intent implies for modern application.
Objective Deep Dive

The Supreme Court's April 1 oral arguments will hinge fundamentally on historical interpretation of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause. The constitutional provision at the center of the case, known as the citizenship clause, is part of the 14th Amendment, which was added to the Constitution in 1868. The clause confers citizenship on anyone "born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It was intended to overrule the Supreme Court's notorious 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, the administration has said, not people temporarily in the country illegally. Yet Justice Horace Gray explained that although the "main purpose" of the 14th Amendment had been to establish the citizenship of Black people, including former enslaved persons born in the United States, the amendment applies more broadly and is not restricted "by color or race."

The left's core strength lies in precedent and textual stability: The long-held understanding of Wong Kim Ark's majority opinion is cited by the ACLU as a factor controlling the case. "The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens," Gray wrote in 1898. The right's weakness in this argument is that experts dispute their historical reading—experts on Native American law say the Elk v. Wilkins ruling has no bearing on whether the children of immigrants without permanent legal status can be denied birthright citizenship. Meanwhile, the right's originalist argument about congressional intent is challenged by modern evidence: the citizenship clause was ratified to confirm—not change—this aspect of existing law, meaning the framers likely intended broad application, not restriction.

What remains unresolved and consequential: If the Trump administration prevails, all parents, including U.S. citizens and green card holders, would have to produce evidence of their own citizenship or immigration status at the time of their child's birth before that child could be recognized as a citizen. That is a burden millions of Americans cannot meet. A recent survey by the Brennan Center for Justice found that at least 3.8 million Americans have no document proving their citizenship — no birth certificate, passport or naturalization certificate. Under Trump's order, if these people have children, they cannot establish their citizenship. The court's composition suggests a conservative majority, though Justice Kavanaugh regularly sides with the administration, and he was in dissent when the court struck down Trump's emergency tariffs earlier this year, indicating he may not be a reliable vote for the administration on every issue.

◈ Tone Comparison

Left-leaning sources use loaded language like "cruel and reckless immigration policy" and emphasize constitutional violations and humanitarian consequences. Right-leaning sources emphasize national security threats and "American citizenship is the ultimate prize and has become a top international commodity" with a focus on original constitutional intent and fraud prevention.

✕ Key Disagreements
The meaning of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the 14th Amendment
Left: "The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens," according to the Wong Kim Ark precedent that challengers cite.
Right: The Trump administration has zeroed in on "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," arguing it excludes both the children of people who entered the country illegally and those born to people with temporary legal status, such as work visas. Sauer argues that it shows birthright citizenship only applies to people who are subject to the "political jurisdiction" of the United States.
Whether the order violates constitutional text and precedent
Left: "The federal courts have unanimously held that President Trump's executive order is contrary to the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision from 1898, and a law enacted by Congress," according to the ACLU.
Right: Only since the court handed down a landmark precedent upholding the idea of birthright citizenship in 1898, the government says, has a "latter-day misconception" of the clause's scope taken hold. "That interpretation is untenable," the Department of Justice argues.
Whether this represents executive overreach or constitutional interpretation
Left: "Beginning over thirty years ago, opponents of birthright citizenship have striven to change the law by constitutional means—the democratic process of introducing bills in Congress both to amend the INA, and to begin the process of constitutional amendment. Those efforts having failed, the President now seeks to attain his goals by unilateral executive fiat. Rather than trying to persuade Congress to exercise its authority to amend or repeal the INA, he seeks to evade that process with an unconstitutional power grab."
Right: "The Supreme Court could redefine citizenship in a more restrictive way to better conform to the original intent of the 14th Amendment." The right frames this as legitimate constitutional interpretation, not executive overreach.
The scale and significance of birth tourism as a problem
Left: The challengers push back, calling the rate of "birth tourism" "marginal." The CDC estimates there were about 9,500 births to those who reported a non-U.S. address as their residence in 2024, though the Center for Immigration Studies estimates temporary visitors gave birth to about 70,000 babies in 2023.
Right: Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute, told the Judiciary Committee that birth tourism business was conducted at an "industrial" scale in China. He testified that companies charge as much as $100,000 to transport Chinese nationals to the U.S. or American territories to give birth and then arrange for the newborn child's transport back to China once they are old enough.