The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a landmark case that will determine the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's executive order banning birthright citizenship. This order, signed on the first day of his second term, represents the first of his major immigration policies to reach the nation's highest court for a definitive ruling.
A Challenge to a 125-Year Precedent
The core of the legal battle centres on the administration's attempt to overturn a principle established for over 125 years. The policy declares that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or on a temporary basis are not automatically American citizens. This directly challenges the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has been understood to confer citizenship on nearly everyone born on American soil.
Lower courts have consistently ruled against the administration. A federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the order in July 2025 as part of a class-action lawsuit. Similarly, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that Democratic-led states required a nationwide injunction to prevent a patchwork of citizenship laws. Every lower court to examine the issue has found the order violates, or likely violates, the Constitution.
Conflicting Signals from the Bench
The Supreme Court's decision to take the case comes amidst a series of emergency rulings on other Trump immigration measures, sending mixed signals. The justices halted the use of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members without hearings. However, they allowed the resumption of broad immigration stops in Los Angeles after a lower court had blocked the practice.
The court is also considering whether the administration can deploy National Guard troops for immigration enforcement in Chicago, a move currently blocked by a lower court. The birthright citizenship case, however, is the first to move beyond emergency orders to a full review on its ultimate merits.
The Legal Arguments For and Against
The administration, backed by 24 Republican-led states and 27 GOP lawmakers including Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, argues the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause was intended for freed slaves, not the children of unauthorised immigrants. D. John Sauer, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, contends these children are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
Opponents, led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), call this an unconstitutional overreach. "No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship," said Cecillia Wang, the ACLU's national legal director. The ACLU represents the children and parents in the New Hampshire case, aiming to settle the issue "once and for all."
The justices will hear arguments in the spring of 2026, with a final ruling expected by early summer. Their decision will have profound implications for the interpretation of the Constitution and the lives of countless families across the United States.
