Supreme Court to Rule on Trump’s Bid to Restrict Birthright Citizenship Amid Constitutional Challenges

WASHINGTON: The U.S. Supreme Court is set to deliver a ruling on Tuesday regarding President Donald Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship, a significant aspect of his immigration policy. This case addresses a right that has been integral to American society for generations.

A lower court previously blocked Trump’s executive order, which instructed U.S. agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident, commonly referred to as a “green card” holder. The ruling is expected on the final day of the court’s current term, which commenced in October.

Challengers to Trump’s directive argue that it contravenes the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which grants citizenship to individuals born on U.S. soil who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Critics of the order have accused Trump of racial and religious discrimination in his immigration policies.

The Supreme Court’s decision comes just ahead of the July 4 holiday, a time when the nation celebrates its 250th anniversary. Experts suggest that Trump’s directive could impact the legal status of approximately 250,000 newborns annually, potentially requiring millions of families to verify their children’s citizenship status.

A Class-Action Suit

The legal challenge against Trump’s directive, which is currently before the Supreme Court, stems from a class-action lawsuit filed in New Hampshire. This lawsuit involves parents and children whose citizenship is jeopardized by the executive order. The 14th Amendment has historically been interpreted to guarantee citizenship for individuals born in the United States, with limited exceptions, such as the children of foreign diplomats.

The relevant provision, known as the Citizenship Clause, states: “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.” The Trump administration contends that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” implies that merely being born in the U.S. does not automatically confer citizenship, excluding the children of undocumented immigrants or those whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as students or work visa holders.

According to the administration, citizenship is granted solely to children whose “primary allegiance” is to the United States, which includes citizens and permanent residents. This allegiance is established through “lawful domicile,” defined by the administration’s lawyers as “lawful, permanent residence within a nation, with intent to remain.” Notably, Trump made history on April 1 by becoming the first sitting president to attend Supreme Court arguments, although he departed midway through the proceedings.

‘Birth Tourism’

During the court arguments, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, claimed that the promise of citizenship for nearly any child born on U.S. soil has led to what he termed a “sprawling industry of birth tourism.” Sauer stated that “uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades” to secure citizenship for their children. When pressed for evidence regarding the extent of “birth tourism,” Sauer primarily referenced media reports and acknowledged that “no one knows for sure.”

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 following the Civil War, which abolished slavery in the United States. It overturned a notorious 1857 Supreme Court ruling that declared individuals of African descent could never be U.S. citizens. During the arguments, Sauer characterized the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause as having a limited purpose, asserting it was designed “to grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves and their children, whose allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile here.”

An 1898 Precedent

Challengers to the directive argue that the Supreme Court has already addressed the issue of birthright citizenship in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to individuals born on U.S. soil, including the children of foreign nationals. The administration contends that the 1898 precedent supports Trump’s order, as Wong Kim Ark’s parents had permanent domicile and residence in the United States at the time of his birth.

Some justices expressed skepticism during the arguments, with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch questioning the administration’s reliance on the Wong Kim Ark case. Trump has long threatened to restrict who qualifies for citizenship at birth, previously stating on social media that “Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America.”

U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante, based in Concord, New Hampshire, allowed the challenge to Trump’s order to proceed as a class action in July 2025, effectively blocking the policy nationwide. Last year, the Supreme Court granted Trump an initial victory regarding birthright citizenship by limiting federal judges’ authority to curtail presidential policies nationwide, although this ruling did not resolve the legality of Trump’s directive.

Immigration Rulings

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has supported Trump on various immigration-related policies since his return to the presidency. For instance, on June 25, the court permitted the Trump administration to revoke humanitarian status for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants, protecting them from deportation. On the same day, the court upheld the government’s authority to deny asylum seekers when U.S.-Mexico border crossings are deemed too burdensome.

In other cases, the court has allowed Trump to expand mass deportation measures while legal challenges are ongoing, including the termination of humanitarian protections for certain migrants and aggressive immigration raids targeting individuals based on race or language. However, the court has not consistently ruled in Trump’s favor; in February, it invalidated sweeping tariffs he sought to impose under a law intended for national emergencies.

Source: www.emirates247.com

Read all the latest developments and breaking updates in the Latest News section.

Published on 2026-06-30 14:36:00 • By the Editorial Desk