The U.S. Supreme Court may rule as early as today on whether President Donald Trump can broadly enforce an executive order limiting birthright citizenship—an issue that could significantly alter long-standing interpretations of the U.S. Constitution and impact thousands of families each year.
The order, signed by Trump on his first day back in office in January, directs federal agencies to deny U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil unless at least one parent is either a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident (green card holder). The policy, a centerpiece of Trump’s hardline immigration agenda, could affect more than 150,000 newborns annually, according to plaintiffs challenging the order.
Constitutional Challenge and Nationwide Injunctions
Federal judges in Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts swiftly blocked enforcement of the order, citing likely violations of the 14th Amendment. Ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, the amendment guarantees that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.”
Riders organized by Connecting Compton display a U.S.-Mexican flag and a U.S. flag as they ride in a ‘cabalgata’ for human rights, following multiple detentions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in the Los Angeles County city of Compton, California, U.S., June 22, 2025. REUTERS/Jill Connelly
The Biden administration and immigrant advocacy groups argue that this clause has historically been interpreted to include nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil—regardless of their parents’ immigration status. A landmark 1898 Supreme Court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, has been used to uphold this interpretation for over a century.
Trump’s administration, however, contends that the ruling was narrower in scope and only applies to children of parents with permanent residence. In oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court on May 15, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the order aligns with the original intent of the 14th Amendment, which he said was meant to apply to the children of former slaves—not undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors.
Broader Legal Implications
In addition to challenging birthright citizenship, the administration has asked the Court to restrict the use of nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions. These court orders, which prevent the government from enforcing policies beyond the individual plaintiffs involved in a lawsuit, have been used frequently in recent years to block executive actions from both Republican and Democratic presidents.
Staff work amid people repatriated from the United States, as U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem tours Department of Homeland Security operations at La Aurora International Airport in Guatemala City, Guatemala, June 26, 2025. Anna Moneymaker/Pool via REUTERS
Critics of universal injunctions say they usurp executive authority, while supporters view them as a vital tool to prevent unconstitutional policies from taking effect on a wide scale.
Public Opinion Divided
A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted on June 11–12 shows that 52% of Americans oppose ending birthright citizenship, while 24% support such a move. Support is heavily split along party lines: only 5% of Democrats favor the change, compared to 43% of Republicans.
The Supreme Court, currently holding a 6–3 conservative majority, has already granted Trump several victories on immigration since his return to office. These include rulings allowing the resumption of deportations to third countries and ending temporary humanitarian protections for certain migrant groups.
However, the Court has also pushed back on some actions. In May, justices blocked the administration from deporting Venezuelan migrants under a rarely used 1798 wartime law, citing due process concerns.
