Friday, April 18, 2025 - The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments on May 15 in a case challenging US President Donald Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship for most individuals born in the United States.
While the Court declined the Trump administration’s request
to immediately implement the policy, its decision to take up the case marks a
significant and historic moment. The administration framed the appeal as a
“modest” effort to limit lower court orders, but a ruling in Trump’s favor
could enforce a policy previously labeled “blatantly unconstitutional” by lower
courts.
The core issue before the Court is whether federal district
courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions—orders that block
government actions beyond the scope of individual lawsuits. Legal experts have
noted the implications of using this particular case to resolve such a
procedural debate.
“This administration is trying to use a procedural issue to
activate a policy that many view as unconstitutional across nearly the entire
country,” said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and Georgetown
University law professor. “It would be stunning if the justices resolved this
through a case with such high political stakes.”
Trump had made ending birthright citizenship a key part of
his reelection campaign. Although the 14th Amendment has long been interpreted
to grant citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the U.S., Trump signed an
executive order on his first day back in office to prevent the government from
recognizing citizenship for individuals born to undocumented foreign parents.
The move triggered a flurry of lawsuits and nationwide injunctions.
Trump’s legal team narrowed their focus in the appeal, challenging the breadth
of the court orders rather than the constitutionality of birthright citizenship
itself.
Legal precedent on the issue dates back to the 1898 Supreme Court decision
in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that individuals born in the
U.S. are citizens. The current Court has not expressed interest in revisiting
that ruling, but some conservatives argue that children of undocumented
immigrants should not qualify as citizens under the 14th Amendment’s “subject
to the jurisdiction” clause.
The Department of Justice has criticized lower courts for issuing broad
injunctions that impact people who were not directly involved in the lawsuits.
However, opponents argue that birthright citizenship is a national issue that
demands a uniform ruling, rather than fragmented state-by-state outcomes.
Emergency court rulings, while not deciding the merits of a case, can have
major short-term consequences. For instance, in 2021, the Supreme Court
declined to block a Texas law banning most abortions after six weeks,
effectively allowing enforcement until Roe v. Wade was overturned months later.
In the case of birthright citizenship, several lower courts quickly
intervened after Trump signed the executive order. A federal judge in
Washington—appointed by President Ronald Reagan—blocked the administration from
enforcing the policy and later issued a preliminary injunction. The 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision in a lawsuit brought by four
states: Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon.
In a separate case, a federal judge in Maryland—appointed by President Joe
Biden—issued a nationwide injunction, which was also upheld by the 4th Circuit
Court of Appeals. Another injunction was issued by a federal judge in
Massachusetts in a case led by New Jersey and 17 other states.
Trump appealed all three cases to the Supreme Court on March 13. The
outcome of the case could reshape the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and
redefine how citizenship is granted in the United States.
0 Comments