Trump Admin Challenges Birthright Citizenship Ban In Supreme Court

Supreme Court building with fountain under clear sky

President Trump asks the Supreme Court to intervene on the birthright citizenship ban as lower courts block his day-one executive order targeting children of illegal immigrants and non-citizens on temporary visas.

Quick Takes

President Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office to end automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants and those on temporary visas
Multiple federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state have blocked the order with nationwide injunctions
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argues these nationwide injunctions exceed constitutional limits and has asked the Supreme Court to narrow their application
The administration contends the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to everyone born on U.S. soil
This marks the first time the birthright citizenship battle has reached the Supreme Court

Trump Administration Takes Birthright Citizenship Fight to Supreme Court

The Trump administration has formally requested the Supreme Court’s intervention to salvage parts of the president’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The order, signed on January 20, 2025, aims to end automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to parents who are either in the country illegally or on temporary visas. Currently, the policy remains blocked nationwide due to injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state, who have deemed the order unconstitutional based on traditional interpretations of the 14th Amendment.

Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris filed the emergency appeal, focusing not on the constitutionality of the order itself but on the scope of the injunctions blocking it. Harris has characterized the administration’s request as “modest,” asking the Court to restrict these injunctions to only cover parties directly involved in the litigation rather than applying nationwide. This approach would potentially allow the policy to take effect for most cases while the broader constitutional questions continue through the legal system.

Constitutional Questions and Legal Challenges

At the heart of this legal battle is the interpretation 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.” The Trump administration contends this language does not automatically grant citizenship to everyone born on American soil. Harris argues the traditional interpretation is overly broad and that children of illegal immigrants or temporary visa holders do not fall under the intended protection of the Amendment.

“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,” Harris wrote in the appeal.

Multiple federal judges have rejected this interpretation. Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland noted that “no court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation. This court will not be the first.” Similarly, Judge John Coughenour in Washington described the order as “blatantly unconstitutional” when extending a temporary ban on its implementation. The administration faces opposition from 22 states and numerous immigrant rights groups who have filed lawsuits challenging the order’s constitutionality.

Nationwide Injunctions in the Spotlight

Beyond the birthright citizenship question, this case brings attention to the controversial practice of nationwide injunctions issued by individual federal judges. The Trump administration has highlighted that the frequency of such injunctions has increased dramatically, with 15 issued in February 2025 alone, compared to just 14 during the first three years of President Biden’s term. The Department of Justice argues these broad injunctions exceed judicial authority and hamper the Executive Branch’s ability to implement policy.

“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” Harris stated in court documents.

The administration’s appeal notes that five conservative Supreme Court justices have previously expressed concerns about nationwide injunctions. However, Judge Danielle Forrest of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals challenged the urgency of the request, writing: “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.” The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether such broad injunctions are constitutional.

Border Security and Policy Implications

The Trump administration has framed the birthright citizenship order 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.” Currently, the United States is one of approximately 30 countries worldwide that grant automatic citizenship to virtually anyone born within their borders. The administration argues this policy incentivizes illegal immigration and what critics call “birth tourism,” where pregnant women travel to the U.S. specifically to give birth.

If implemented, the order would deny citizenship to children born after February 19, 2025, to parents in the U.S. illegally and prevent federal agencies from recognizing such citizenship. The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to take the case and potentially narrow the nationwide injunctions could have significant implications not only for immigration policy but also for the broader question of executive power and the judiciary’s role in checking it. This marks the first time the legal battle over ending birthright citizenship has reached the nation’s highest court.