US Supreme Court to hear case on Trump's move to end birthright citizenship

The US Supreme Court will weigh Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship, a move critics call unconstitutional and a threat to long-standing legal principles

The US Supreme Court on Thursday announced that it will hear arguments next month over President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship, reported The New York Times.

 

In a brief, unsigned order, the Supreme Court justices said they would take up the case without explaining their reasoning — a common move in emergency matters. However, their quick decision to schedule oral arguments signals that they view the issue as important. The court set the hearing for May 15.

 

Until then, Trump’s order, which seeks to deny automatic US citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants and foreign residents, will remain paused nationwide. Lower courts had already issued blocks against Trump’s order, and the top court agreed to leave those in place for now.

 

 

This case marks the latest in a series of emergency applications filed by the Trump administration challenging court rulings that halted several controversial policies, including attempts to freeze over a billion dollars in foreign aid and to deport Venezuelans to prison in El Salvador without due process.

 

Debate over executive power and the Constitution 

The Trump administration filed three emergency requests, arguing that lower courts overstepped by imposing nationwide bans on the birthright citizenship policy. However, it did not ask the Supreme Court to decide whether Trump’s executive order itself is constitutional — only whether the broad nationwide injunctions were appropriate.

 

The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on that narrower issue: Whether lower courts acted beyond their authority by blocking the order across the entire country.

 

President Trump, who issued the executive order on his first day in office, welcomed the news. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, he said he was “so happy” and added, “The case has been so misunderstood. That case, birthright citizenship, is about slavery," without providing further explanation.

 

Critics argue that Trump’s order directly challenges the Constitution. Matthew J Platkin, New Jersey’s attorney general and one of the leaders of the legal challenge, called the order “blatantly unconstitutional.” 

“Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the Constitution in the wake of the Civil War, is backed by a long line of Supreme Court precedent and ensures that something as fundamental as American citizenship cannot be turned on or off at the whims of a single man,” Platkin said in a statement. 

“We look forward to presenting our arguments to the Supreme Court in May," he added. 

 

ALSO READ | Trump admin asks SC to partly allow birthright citizenship restrictions

 

Longstanding legal principles at stake 

Birthright citizenship has been a core principle of American law for more than a century. The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, states that "all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In 1898, the Supreme Court reinforced this in United States vs Wong Kim Ark, guaranteeing citizenship to almost everyone born on US soil. Courts have consistently upheld that interpretation since.

Still, some of Trump’s allies, including constitutional scholar John Eastman, known for helping orchestrate the fake elector plot after the 2020 election, argue that the 14th Amendment has been wrongly interpreted to automatically grant citizenship to all.

 

Trump’s executive order quickly faced legal challenges, and federal courts in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington State issued temporary nationwide injunctions blocking the policy while the lawsuits moved forward.

 

ALSO READ | US judge says Trump ignored rule of law to curb birthright citizenship

 

Injunctions test executive boundaries

 

These nationwide injunctions have sparked fierce debate. In asking the Supreme Court to intervene, Solicitor General D John Sauer argued that such broad rulings were rare until recently and now pose a threat to presidential power.

 

“Nationwide injunctions experienced a dramatic upsurge during the first Trump administration, followed by an explosion in the last three months,” Sauer wrote in a court filing. He said these broad orders “gravely encroach on the president’s executive power” and urged the justices to step in to “restore the constitutional balance of separated powers.”

 

Opponents of the executive order, however, urged the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s arguments. Lawyers for Washington State, Arizona, and Oregon said in their brief that nationwide injunctions simply maintain the longstanding understanding of US citizenship.

 

“Being directed to follow the law as it has been universally understood for over 125 years is not an emergency warranting the extraordinary remedy of a stay,” the lawyers wrote.

 

ALSO READ | What is birthright citizenship and why did a US judge block Trump's order?