President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, signed on his first day back in office, would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to certain children born on American soil to mothers who are undocumented or in the country on temporary visas. It has never taken effect. Every federal court to rule on it has found it unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 1, 2026, with a decision expected by late June or early July 2026.1SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Appears Likely to Side Against Trump on Birthright Citizenship
What the Order Would Do
Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” was signed on January 20, 2025. It directs federal agencies to stop issuing documents recognizing U.S. citizenship for a child born in the United States if, at the moment of birth, the mother fell into one of two categories and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.2The White House. Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship The two categories are mothers who are in the country without legal authorization, and mothers lawfully present on a temporary basis, such as a student, work, or tourist visa, or under the Visa Waiver Program.
The order was written to apply to children born on or after February 19, 2025, thirty days after signing. It does not try to revoke citizenship from anyone already born.3The American Presidency Project. Executive Order 14160 — Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship In practice, enforcement would mean withholding passports and Social Security numbers from affected newborns and blocking their access to federal programs tied to citizenship.
The Constitutional Problem
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, reads: “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.” It was adopted to overturn the 1857 Dred Scott ruling that Black people could not be citizens.4National Museum of African American History and Culture. Reconstruction — Citizenship
The entire dispute turns on five words: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” For more than a century, courts and the federal government have read those words broadly, treating nearly everyone born on U.S. soil as a citizen, with narrow exceptions for children of foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces occupying American territory.5Congress.gov. Fourteenth Amendment — Citizenship Clause
The controlling precedent is United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The Supreme Court held 6-2 that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were ineligible for naturalization was an American citizen. Justice Horace Gray wrote that the Fourteenth Amendment “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country.”6U.S. Department of State. Foreign Affairs Manual — Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship at Birth The Court also stated that Congress lacks the authority to “restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.”
The Trump administration reads the clause differently. Its position is that “subject to the jurisdiction” requires more than physical presence and obedience to American law; it demands a form of permanent allegiance or domicile that undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders cannot establish. That reading breaks sharply with the one courts have applied since 1898.
In 2018, fifteen constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum declared there is “no serious scholarly debate” about whether a president can eliminate birthright citizenship by executive order, calling any such attempt a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and settled Supreme Court precedent.7Harvard Law School Human Rights Program. Constitutional Law Scholars Respond to Trump’s Threats Against Birthright Citizenship Judge James Ho, a conservative federal appeals court judge appointed by Trump, has written that a constitutional amendment is “the only way to restrict birthright citizenship.”
Why the Order Has Never Taken Effect
Challenges began within days. Four major lawsuits were filed in late January and early February 2025: a multi-state case led by Washington in federal court in Seattle; a coalition of 18 states, the District of Columbia, and San Francisco led by New York Attorney General Letitia James in Boston;8New York Attorney General. Attorney General James Challenges Unconstitutional Executive Order on Birthright a nonprofit-led case in Maryland (CASA v. Trump); and an ACLU class action in New Hampshire (Barbara v. Trump).9ACLU. Barbara v. Donald J. Trump
Judge John Coughenour in Washington blocked the order nationwide on January 23, 2025, three days after it was signed. Judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire followed with injunctions of their own by mid-February.10SCOTUSblog. Where Does Birthright Citizenship Order Currently Stand Every federal appeals court that considered the government’s requests for stays denied them.
Trump v. CASA
The administration took the fight to the Supreme Court, but on a procedural question rather than the merits: whether a single district judge can issue a “universal” injunction that blocks a government policy for everyone, not just the parties who sued. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority; Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented.11SCOTUSblog. Trump v. CASA, Inc. The Court explicitly did not rule on whether the executive order itself is constitutional, and it left open the possibility that class-action injunctions could still block the order nationwide.12Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. CASA, Inc., No. 24A884
The Injunctions Return as Class Actions
Challengers adapted within weeks. On July 10, 2025, Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire certified a nationwide class of affected babies and their parents in Barbara v. Trump and issued a new class-based preliminary injunction, finding the order a “blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution.”13ACLU. Federal Court Blocks Trump Birthright Citizenship Order Laplante distinguished his approach from the universal injunctions the Supreme Court had just curtailed, telling the courtroom: “I’m the judge who wasn’t comfortable with issuing a nationwide injunction. Class action is different.”
On July 23, 2025, the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 that the executive order is unconstitutional. Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the majority: “One power that the President was not granted, by Article II or by any other source, is the power to modify or change any clause of the United States Constitution.”14Nevada Current. 9th Circuit Rules Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Unconstitutional Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston reaffirmed his injunction two days later, and Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland issued another nationwide class-based injunction on August 7, 2025.15The Hill. Trump Birthright Citizenship Order Blocked
No court has allowed the order to take effect at any point.
The Pending Supreme Court Case
On December 5, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365), agreeing to decide whether the executive order violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and the corresponding federal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a).16SCOTUSblog. Trump v. Barbara Oral argument was held on April 1, 2026. President Trump attended part of the session, reportedly the first time a sitting president has been present for oral arguments at the Supreme Court.17AILA. Takeaways From Trump v. Barbara Oral Argument
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that “subject to the jurisdiction” requires “direct and immediate allegiance” and legal domicile, which he said undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders cannot establish. He relied on the 1866 Civil Rights Act’s language about persons “not subject to any foreign power” and on statements by Senator Lyman Trumbull during Reconstruction, and raised “birth tourism” as a policy concern.18Supreme Court of the United States. Oral Argument Transcript — Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365 ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang argued that Wong Kim Ark settled the question over a century ago and that birthright citizenship is a “bedrock right” rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment’s repudiation of hereditary castes.19ACLU. Legal Groups File Supreme Court Brief Supporting Birthright Citizenship
Justices across the Court’s ideological range pressed the government hard. Justice Kagan called the government’s reading “revisionist.” Justice Gorsuch noted that the Fourteenth Amendment’s text focuses on the child, not the parents, and called the absence of any mention of “domicile” in the historical debates “striking.” Justice Barrett questioned how the rule would apply to foundlings and whether it would be practical to adjudicate parental intent at the moment of birth. Justice Jackson asked why the amendment contains no language about parents at all. Justice Kavanaugh pointed out that the Fourteenth Amendment’s framers deliberately replaced the 1866 Act’s “not subject to any foreign power” with “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and that Congress repeated the broader phrase in statutes in 1940 and 1952, well after Wong Kim Ark. When Sauer argued it was a “new world,” Chief Justice Roberts replied: “Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.”20SCOTUSblog. Birthright Citizenship Oral Argument Highlights
Analysts who reviewed the transcript concluded the administration appeared likely to lose, with a potential 7-2 or 6-3 ruling against the order and Justices Thomas and Alito identified as the most probable dissenters.1SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Appears Likely to Side Against Trump on Birthright Citizenship A decision is expected by late June or early July 2026.
Who Would Be Affected
If the order were ever enforced, the multi-state coalition estimated it would deny citizenship to more than 150,000 children born in the United States each year. In 2022, an estimated 153,000 children were born to two undocumented parents.21Children’s Defense Fund. What to Know About Trump’s Executive Order Seeking to End Birthright Citizenship Over time, the policy could produce a population of millions of U.S.-born people without citizenship, legal status, or access to basic services.
The impact would fall disproportionately on Latino families. Research by the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute found Latinos account for nearly 80 percent of births to unauthorized parents, a share projected to exceed 90 percent by 2050.22Brennan Center for Justice. Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order and Its Impact on Latinos At least 750,000 children would be born to two undocumented or temporary immigrant parents over the next 20 years.
Even without enforcement, researchers describe a “chilling effect.” Immigrant families have reported avoiding prenatal care, skipping medical visits, and withdrawing from public health programs. Newborns of mothers who do not receive prenatal care incur twice the postnatal and long-term pediatric costs compared with those whose mothers had at least one prenatal visit.23UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute. Ending Birthright Citizenship Schools in some areas have reported sharp drops in attendance among children of immigrant families.
Bills Moving in Parallel
Congress has pending bills in both directions, though neither has advanced beyond committee. Senator Lindsey Graham’s Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025 (S. 304) would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit birthright citizenship to children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or noncitizen serving in the Armed Forces, and has eight cosponsors.24Congress.gov. S.304 — Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025 Congresswoman Delia Ramirez’s Born in the USA Act would prohibit any federal funds from being used to carry out Executive Order 14160; it was introduced with 109 original House cosponsors, and a Senate companion (S. 646) was introduced by Senator Jacky Rosen with 19 cosponsors.25Office of Congresswoman Delia Ramirez. Ramirez Leads 109 Members to Protect Birthright Citizenship
Whether Congress has the power to redefine birthright citizenship by statute is itself contested. Wong Kim Ark said it does not. That question, like the executive order’s fate, now sits with the Supreme Court.