Trump Admin Seeks Supreme Court Ruling On Birthright Citizenship

Classical building with columns and a statue outside.

President Trump has petitioned the Supreme Court to allow his executive order limiting birthright citizenship to proceed, challenging nationwide injunctions that have blocked this cornerstone of his border security agenda.

Key Takeaways

President Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders
Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state have issued nationwide injunctions blocking the order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional”
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to narrow these injunctions to apply only to those who directly sued
The administration argues the 14th Amendment does not universally grant citizenship to everyone born in the U.S.
This case represents the first time the birthright citizenship debate has reached the Supreme Court

Constitutional Challenge to the 14th Amendment

President Trump’s executive order, signed on January 20, 2025, represents a significant reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. The order aims to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas. The administration characterizes the measure as an “integral part of President Trump’s broader effort to repair the United States’ immigration system, and to address the ongoing crisis at the southern border.”

The United States is currently among approximately 30 countries worldwide that grant citizenship based on birth location rather than parental citizenship status. Critics argue that this policy creates incentives for illegal immigration and what some term “birth tourism,” where pregnant women travel to the U.S. specifically to have children who will become American citizens. The executive order would specifically deny citizenship to children born after February 19 to parents in the U.S. illegally.

Legal Challenges and Multiple Injunctions

The executive order faced immediate legal opposition, with over 22 states and various immigrant rights groups filing lawsuits challenging its constitutionality. Federal judges in three states have issued nationwide injunctions blocking implementation. Judge John Coughenour in Washington state called the order “blatantly unconstitutional” and extended a temporary ban. Similarly, Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland blocked the order, stating that “no court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation. This court will not be the first.”

“These cases – which involve challenges to the President’s January 20, 2025, Executive Order concerning birthright citizenship – raise important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border,” Sarah Harris wrote.

The federal appeals courts have largely upheld these injunctions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit declined to pause Judge Leo Sorokin’s ruling in Massachusetts, while the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld Judge Coughenour’s injunction. Judge Danielle Forrest noted during these proceedings that there was no emergency justifying immediate Supreme Court intervention, stating: “It is routine for both executive and legislative policies to be challenged in court, particularly where a new policy is a significant shift from prior understanding and practice.”

Administration’s Appeal to the Supreme Court

Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris has filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, requesting the justices to restrict the scope of these injunctions. The administration is not asking the Court to rule on the constitutionality of the executive order itself at this stage, but rather to limit the injunctions to only apply to the parties who actually sued. Harris argues that nationwide injunctions exceed constitutional limits and inappropriately hinder the Executive Branch’s authority.

“But at this stage, the government comes to this Court with a ‘modest’ request: while the parties litigate weighty merits questions, the Court should ‘restrict the scope’ of multiple preliminary injunctions that ‘purpor[t] to cover every person in the country,’ limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts’ power,” wrote Sarah Harris.

The administration’s central legal argument involves a reinterpretation of 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.” Harris argues this clause “does not extend citizenship universally to everyone born in the United States.” The appeal also highlights the issue of nationwide injunctions by individual judges, a concern previously noted by five conservative justices on the Court.

This case marks the first time the legal battle over ending birthright citizenship has reached the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a potential landmark ruling on both immigration policy and the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The Court’s decision could have far-reaching implications for American immigration policy and constitutional interpretation for generations to come.