Supreme Court to Rule on Birthright Citizenship as Nation Marks 250th Anniversary

The Supreme Court will decide *Trump v. Barbara*, a challenge to President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which seeks to deny birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants. Oral arguments were heard April 1; a decision is expected by late June or early July.

Salon

The case hinges on the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, adopted after the Civil War alongside the 13th and 15th Amendments. In 1898, *U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark* affirmed jus soli, granting citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of parents’ status. Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented in that decision.

Salon

The Trump administration argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of non-citizen parents, requiring “direct and immediate allegiance.” Solicitor General John Sauer presented this view. Plaintiffs—three families—assert the order violates the 14th Amendment. A New Hampshire district court blocked the order and certified a nationwide class of affected children.

Salon

The executive order states the Citizenship Clause “had never been interpreted to grant birthright citizenship” to children of undocumented parents. The New Hampshire injunction halted enforcement. During oral arguments, several conservative justices questioned the administration’s interpretation, showing skepticism of the jurisdiction argument.

Salon

Legal scholars contend the case threatens the United States’ identity as a nation of immigrants. UCLA professor Hiroshi Motomura called the challenge “bedrock” and “far beyond overruling Roe v. Wade,” warning it could reshape the constitutional meaning of citizenship.

Salon

• “This is why this is so bedrock compared to other things that the Supreme Court is sometimes characterized for doing as being quite radical.” — Hiroshi Motomura, UCLA School of Law professor

Salon

• “This goes way beyond overruling Roe v. Wade. I think that was a radical move, but this is no comparison.” — Hiroshi Motomura

Salon

• “John Marshall Harlan, the great dissenter, who dissented in Wong Kim Ark and later gave a bunch of lectures, he posed the question about the sojourners.” — Justice Neil Gorsuch

Salon

• “The order claims that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause had never been interpreted to grant birthright citizenship to such children because they are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States.” — Trump administration executive order

Salon

The Court’s ruling, due early July, will decide whether the order remains enforceable, affecting a nationwide class of children born to undocumented parents. A pro-administration decision could spur further litigation and shift immigration policy; a rejection would reaffirm *Wong Kim Ark* and preserve the current 14th Amendment interpretation.

Salon