On May 15, 2025, the US Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in a high-profile case concerning President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship . The order, signed on January 20, 2025, directs federal agencies to deny citizenship to children born on US soil unless at least one parent is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident. This move has sparked significant legal challenges, with federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington issuing nationwide injunctions, citing violations of the 14th Amendment. The Court is currently focused on whether these lower courts overstepped by issuing universal injunctions, rather than the constitutionality of the order itself.
The debate centers on the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Trump’s administration argues that the amendment does not extend to children of undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas, claiming it encourages “birth tourism.” Critics, including 22 Democratic-led states and advocacy groups, assert that the order contradicts over a century of legal precedent, notably the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The case has drawn widespread attention, with protests outside the Court and calls from groups like C-SPAN to televise the proceedings due to its national significance.
What Is Birthright Citizenship?
Birthright citizenship, or jus soli (“right of the soil”), grants automatic citizenship to individuals born on a country’s soil, regardless of their parents’ status. In the US, this principle is enshrined in the 14th Amendment, which 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.” This applies to children born in the 50 states, as well as US territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands. Exceptions include children of foreign diplomats or enemy forces occupying US territory, as they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US.
Historical Context and the 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, post-Civil War, to overturn the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which denied citizenship to Black Americans, including those born on US soil. The amendment aimed to secure citizenship for formerly enslaved people and their descendants. However, its language is broad, extending citizenship to nearly all born in the US. The 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark case solidified this, ruling that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents was a US citizen under the 14th Amendment. This precedent has been upheld for over 125 years.
Legal Precedents and Challenges
The Wong Kim Ark decision remains a cornerstone of birthright citizenship law. The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause applies to individuals born in the US, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. No subsequent Supreme Court ruling has overturned this interpretation. Lower courts have consistently blocked Trump’s executive order, citing its conflict with the amendment and established precedent. For instance, federal judges in three states issued injunctions in early 2025, arguing the order is unconstitutional.
Current Controversy and Supreme Court Hearing
Trump’s executive order, issued on his first day back in office, challenges the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It claims the amendment was intended only for children of enslaved people, not immigrants, a view widely regarded as a fringe legal theory. The Supreme Court’s May 15 hearing focuses on the scope of nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts, not the order’s constitutionality. The administration seeks to limit these injunctions to specific plaintiffs or states, potentially allowing enforcement in areas not covered by lawsuits. This could lead to uneven citizenship rules across the US.
Global Perspective and Data
The US is one of about 35 countries globally that practice unrestricted jus soli, alongside nations like Canada, Brazil, and Jamaica. According to a 2018 Pew Research Center report, approximately 5.4 million children born in the US between 1980 and 2016 had at least one undocumented parent, all of whom are US citizens under current law. The Trump administration argues that birthright citizenship encourages “birth tourism,” though a 2019 study by the Center for Immigration Studies estimated only 20,000 to 26,000 births annually involve non-resident mothers, a small fraction of the 3.8 million births in the US each year.
Why It Matters
Birthright citizenship is a cornerstone of American identity, promoting equality and assimilation. Its potential restriction could affect thousands of children annually, creating legal and social uncertainties. The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by early summer 2025, may not resolve the constitutional question but could reshape how federal judges address executive actions. This case also highlights broader tensions over immigration policy and judicial authority in the US.
The debate centers on the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Trump’s administration argues that the amendment does not extend to children of undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas, claiming it encourages “birth tourism.” Critics, including 22 Democratic-led states and advocacy groups, assert that the order contradicts over a century of legal precedent, notably the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The case has drawn widespread attention, with protests outside the Court and calls from groups like C-SPAN to televise the proceedings due to its national significance.
What Is Birthright Citizenship?
Birthright citizenship, or jus soli (“right of the soil”), grants automatic citizenship to individuals born on a country’s soil, regardless of their parents’ status. In the US, this principle is enshrined in the 14th Amendment, which 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.” This applies to children born in the 50 states, as well as US territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands. Exceptions include children of foreign diplomats or enemy forces occupying US territory, as they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US.
Historical Context and the 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, post-Civil War, to overturn the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which denied citizenship to Black Americans, including those born on US soil. The amendment aimed to secure citizenship for formerly enslaved people and their descendants. However, its language is broad, extending citizenship to nearly all born in the US. The 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark case solidified this, ruling that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents was a US citizen under the 14th Amendment. This precedent has been upheld for over 125 years.
Legal Precedents and Challenges
The Wong Kim Ark decision remains a cornerstone of birthright citizenship law. The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause applies to individuals born in the US, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. No subsequent Supreme Court ruling has overturned this interpretation. Lower courts have consistently blocked Trump’s executive order, citing its conflict with the amendment and established precedent. For instance, federal judges in three states issued injunctions in early 2025, arguing the order is unconstitutional.
Current Controversy and Supreme Court Hearing
Trump’s executive order, issued on his first day back in office, challenges the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It claims the amendment was intended only for children of enslaved people, not immigrants, a view widely regarded as a fringe legal theory. The Supreme Court’s May 15 hearing focuses on the scope of nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts, not the order’s constitutionality. The administration seeks to limit these injunctions to specific plaintiffs or states, potentially allowing enforcement in areas not covered by lawsuits. This could lead to uneven citizenship rules across the US.
Global Perspective and Data
The US is one of about 35 countries globally that practice unrestricted jus soli, alongside nations like Canada, Brazil, and Jamaica. According to a 2018 Pew Research Center report, approximately 5.4 million children born in the US between 1980 and 2016 had at least one undocumented parent, all of whom are US citizens under current law. The Trump administration argues that birthright citizenship encourages “birth tourism,” though a 2019 study by the Center for Immigration Studies estimated only 20,000 to 26,000 births annually involve non-resident mothers, a small fraction of the 3.8 million births in the US each year.
Why It Matters
Birthright citizenship is a cornerstone of American identity, promoting equality and assimilation. Its potential restriction could affect thousands of children annually, creating legal and social uncertainties. The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by early summer 2025, may not resolve the constitutional question but could reshape how federal judges address executive actions. This case also highlights broader tensions over immigration policy and judicial authority in the US.
You may also like
'The Mind Had Told The Body, It's Time To Go': Shastri Reveals Conversation With Kohli Ahead Of Retirement
Russia economy meltdown as potato prices skyrocket after abysmal harvest season
Walthamstow fire LIVE: 100 firefighters battling horror blaze at block of flats
Bella May Culley 'visibly shaken' after being told she could face jail
Murshidabad violence: Situation went out of control due to inadequate police deployment, observes HC
