Supreme Court to Weigh Legality of Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Limits

The U.S. Supreme Court will review whether President Donald Trump’s directive to restrict birthright citizenship is constitutional, taking up a major dispute over how the 14th Amendment has been interpreted for more than a century.

The justices agreed to hear the Justice Department’s appeal after a lower court blocked Trump’s executive order, which instructed federal agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States if neither parent is an American citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. The lower court ruled that the order violated both the 14th Amendment and federal law affirming automatic citizenship for most children born on U.S. soil.

Arguments are expected this term, with a decision likely by June. Trump issued the order on January 20, his first day back in office, as part of a broader campaign to tighten immigration rules. His administration argues that the Constitution does not guarantee citizenship to children of people who are in the country unlawfully or only temporarily.

A White House spokesperson said the case has major implications for national security and the integrity of American citizenship. The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the plaintiffs, said no president can alter the Constitution’s citizenship guarantee.

The administration contends that automatic birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration and “birth tourism,” in which foreign nationals travel to the United States specifically to give birth.

The case before the Court stems from a class-action lawsuit in New Hampshire, which a federal judge allowed to proceed and used as a basis to block the order nationwide. The Supreme Court chose to review that case instead of a similar lawsuit brought by several states.

Opponents say the Supreme Court resolved the issue in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which affirmed citizenship for nearly all children born on U.S. soil, and note that Congress later codified that understanding in federal immigration law.

The dispute represents one of the most significant constitutional challenges of Trump’s renewed immigration agenda.