Supreme Court Weighs End to Birthright Citizenship

Key Takeaways

• Supreme Court reviews Trump executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens or non-residents.
• Lower courts blocked the order, citing the Fourteenth Amendment and 1898 Wong Kim Ark precedent as compelling legal guarantees.
• Congress considers a bill to restrict birthright citizenship; any change likely requires a constitutional amendment, not legislation.

The United States 🇺🇸 Supreme Court is now reviewing a case that could deeply change how the country grants citizenship to children born within its borders. Since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment over 150 years ago, the rule has been simple: almost every child born on American soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of their parents’ citizenship or immigration status. Now, after a new executive order from President Trump and disputes in lower courts, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider both the strength of this legal guarantee and how lower courts can react to major changes in immigration rules.

The Fourteenth Amendment: A Longstanding Promise

The Fourteenth Amendment was passed after the Civil War, with one of its main goals being to ensure that all individuals born on American soil would become citizens. It states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.” This sentence is often pointed to in debates about who can become an American simply by being born in the country.

This idea—called jus soli or “right of soil”—has long been the foundation for American citizenship. In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that a child born in the United States 🇺🇸 to immigrant parents was a citizen, no matter whether the parents were legally in the country or not. This case has set the legal standard ever since.

Executive Order from President Trump: Testing the Law

In January 2025, after winning the presidential election, President Trump issued an executive order meant to end the automatic granting of citizenship to children born in the United States if their parents were not citizens or “lawful permanent residents” (green card holders). This move directly challenges everything that the Fourteenth Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark case stand for.

Within days, lawsuits were filed by several state attorneys general and civil rights groups, saying that the executive order went against a basic part of the Constitution that has guided American life for generations. As courts began reviewing the order, federal judges blocked it from taking effect across the whole country, insisting that it clashed with the Supreme Court’s clear rules.

These lower court judges described the executive order as “blatantly unconstitutional,” pointing out not a single court has ever agreed with the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment can be read to deny citizenship to most children born in the United States 🇺🇸. Their decisions referenced the Wong Kim Ark case again and again, making it clear that the established rule cannot be tossed aside by one branch of government.

Why the Supreme Court Now?

On May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court listened to arguments from both sides, but the main issue was a bit technical: should lower courts be allowed to block enforcement of the executive order everywhere in the country, or only in cases that directly involve the people suing? The term for blocking a law across the country is a “nationwide injunction.” While this may sound like a detail, it could have huge real-world effects.

If the Supreme Court decides that lower courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions, things could become confusing very quickly. For instance, some states might keep granting citizenship to every child born there, while others (where cases are not being challenged) could begin denying citizenship to certain children. This could leave some children stateless, depending on where they were born or whether their parents joined in a lawsuit—leading to a patchwork of rules across the country.

Still, the heart of the legal question remains the same: unless the Supreme Court goes further than expected and overrules its own prior decisions or unless the Constitution is changed, birthright citizenship stays as it is. The Fourteenth Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark precedent have stood for generations.

Congressional Actions: The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025

Alongside the debate in the courts, Congress is also considering the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025. This bill would change the rules so that only children whose parents are citizens or green card holders would get citizenship at birth. If passed, it would create a new, narrower class of citizens and leave others without that protection. Still, this law would run into the very same problems as the executive order: it would likely be challenged in court as unconstitutional and would have to survive multiple levels of legal review.

Legal experts widely agree that changing birthright citizenship would likely require amending the Constitution itself, not just passing a new law or signing an executive order. Changing the Constitution is a long and difficult process, needing both Congress and a majority of states to agree.

What Judges Have Said So Far

So far, every federal judge who has weighed in on the issue has made clear statements. They say that the Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark decision is “binding precedent,” meaning it must be followed unless and until the high court says something different. Attempts to introduce a narrower reading of the Fourteenth Amendment have received strong pushback, with one court describing President Trump’s executive order as “blatantly unconstitutional.” For now, these court decisions mean that citizenship rules remain as they have been for over a century.

Breaking Down the Key Legal Points

Let’s look at the main differences between the long-standing law and what the new rules would try to do:

When you look at the table, you can see just how big a change is being suggested. For 125 years, the rules have stayed consistent. The Supreme Court has always said the Fourteenth Amendment covers almost all children born in America.

What If the Rules Change, Even Temporarily?

If the Supreme Court ends up limiting nationwide injunctions, some children could miss out on citizenship—at least until the full case is settled. For families, this could mean months or years of uncertainty, since they might not know if their children are citizens or not. Some babies could end up without any country to claim as their own (known as “statelessness”), which can create real legal and practical problems.

VisaVerge.com’s investigation reveals that legal scholars and advocacy groups are worried that this kind of patchwork would be hard to manage and unfair. They point to long-standing fears about leaving children in “limbo,” unable to get a passport, healthcare, or social services while the courts figure things out.

Looking at Wider Effects

• For Immigrant Families: Uncertainty about birthright citizenship could cause real anxiety for immigrant parents, especially those who cannot prove citizenship themselves. Many families would not know what rights their children might have until things are settled in court.
• For State Governments: States could face new challenges trying to keep track of who is a citizen and who is not if the rules differ from place to place. They could also find themselves being sued if they deny (or grant) citizenship in a way that courts later say is wrong.
• For the Federal Government: Broken rules around citizenship could make it harder to deal with passports, Social Security numbers, and a range of other official matters, especially for American-born children whose status is uncertain.

This debate has also shined a light on the core values behind American citizenship, including how the country has always welcomed immigrants and made new promises to each generation. Many groups worry that rolling back birthright citizenship could upset the social agreement that binds the nation together.

Historical Context: How Did We Get Here?

The United States 🇺🇸 was not the first country to adopt birthright citizenship, but its approach has shaped policy worldwide. After the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, America welcomed many waves of immigrants with the promise that their children, if born here, would always belong.

The Wong Kim Ark case in 1898 involved a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were not eligible for citizenship because of racist exclusion laws at the time. Still, the Supreme Court protected his birthright citizenship, which helped guarantee others could rely on the same rule.

Today, only a small number of countries have such broad birthright citizenship. Still, many Americans see it as an essential part of the country’s character.

Controversies and Different Points of View

There are strong feelings on both sides of the debate. Supporters of ending birthright citizenship argue that the rule can encourage people to come to the United States ⠀🇺🇸 just so their children will be citizens (sometimes called “birth tourism”). They believe rules should only reward those who have deep connections to the country, such as being a citizen or green card holder.

Opponents say that birthright citizenship has helped build a strong and diverse nation. They see attempts to limit it as unfair to children, especially since a baby has no control over the circumstances of their birth. Civil rights groups also warn that narrowing citizenship may lead to more discrimination and hardship for immigrants and their families.

What the Supreme Court Is Actually Deciding Right Now

It is important to remember: as of now, the Supreme Court is not making a final decision ending birthright citizenship altogether. Instead, it is focusing on whether lower courts can keep blocking the executive order everywhere while courts consider the big picture. The underlying right of almost all American-born children to citizenship is still in place.

If the Supreme Court eventually agrees to a broader review of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Wong Kim Ark decision, a deeper debate will open up. For now, the established law stands, unless and until Congress or the Supreme Court itself takes a historic step to change it.

What Is Still Unchanged

• The Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark still guarantee almost every child born in America is an American citizen.
• No new law or order has yet survived a court review.
• Lower courts have blocked any change until the Supreme Court says otherwise or a constitutional amendment is passed.

What to Watch Going Forward

• The Supreme Court’s decision on nationwide injunctions could shape how quickly the executive order or any law altering birthright citizenship might go into effect, if at all.
• Congress may take further steps, but any change to citizenship rules is likely to end up in court.
• The issue could become central in future elections, as candidates take positions on one of the country’s oldest promises.

For a simple summary: Birthright citizenship in the United States 🇺🇸, backed by the Fourteenth Amendment and confirmed by a key Supreme Court ruling, remains law for now. Any attempt to change this rule faces major legal and political challenges. And while some people think the law should be narrowed, many believe the tradition of birthright citizenship is key to American life.

For those interested in reading the full legal language and updates about birthright citizenship, the official website of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services provides up-to-date information and resources.

In closing, the United States 🇺🇸 stands at a legal crossroads. The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision may not end birthright citizenship, but it could play a big role in how quickly or easily future changes can be stopped or spread. As the debate continues, the Fourteenth Amendment remains the strongest legal defense for children’s right to automatic citizenship—a rule that has shaped the nation for more than a century.

Learn Today

Fourteenth Amendment → A U.S. constitutional amendment ensuring anyone born in the country is a citizen, regardless of parental status, since 1868.
Jus soli → A legal principle granting citizenship to anyone born within a country’s territory, regardless of parental nationality.
Executive order → A directive issued by the president to federal agencies, often used to implement or alter government policy without Congress.
Nationwide injunction → A court order that blocks a law or policy from being enforced anywhere in the country while legal challenges proceed.
Statelessness → Condition where a person is not recognized as a citizen by any country, leaving them without legal protection or rights.

This Article in a Nutshell

The Supreme Court is set to decide if birthright citizenship—guaranteed for 150 years—can be limited by executive order or congressional action. This landmark case may change how citizenship is granted, potentially leaving some American-born children stateless, and could redefine principles underpinning America’s identity and immigrant heritage.
— By VisaVerge.com

Read more:

• Most oppose ending birthright citizenship, NPR/Ipsos poll finds
• Supreme Court Targets Birthright Citizenship in Bombshell Case
• Myra Grypuik’s lifelong wait for Canadian citizenship continues
• El Concilio expands citizenship help as Modesto demand grows
• Texas House blocks hospital citizenship reporting bill