US Supreme Court Weighs Trump’s Effort to End Birthright Citizenship
The United States Supreme Court on Thursday heard arguments in a high-stakes case challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship — a constitutional guarantee that has stood for more than a century, as per Al Jazeera.
The case marks the first time the court has taken up legal questions tied directly to Trump’s January 20 order, which seeks to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. The move has drawn sharp criticism from civil rights groups and state officials, who say it threatens one of the core principles of American identity.
During the two-hour hearing, justices posed sharp questions to both sides — lawyers for the Trump administration and those representing states, advocacy groups, and individuals affected by the executive order.
Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the administration, argued that the 14th Amendment — ratified in 1868 — was intended to grant citizenship only to the children of former slaves, not to those born to undocumented immigrants or foreign visitors.
“The Constitution has been misread for over a century,” Sauer said, maintaining that birthright citizenship “incentivizes illegal entry and abuse of our immigration system.”
But several liberal justices pushed back, citing the landmark 1898 ruling United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ status.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Trump’s order appeared to violate “at least four Supreme Court precedents,” and questioned how the administration could rewrite the historical understanding of the Constitution.
A key issue before the court is whether federal judges have the authority to block such executive orders nationwide — a tool known as a “universal injunction.” The Trump administration contends that recent lower-court rulings in favor of plaintiffs should only apply to those directly involved in the lawsuits.
Justice Elena Kagan warned that a limited ruling could lead to a fragmented legal landscape, asking, “Does every single person affected by this EO have to bring their own suit?”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concern that the administration’s position could result in a “catch me if you can kind of regime,” where constitutional rights could be violated until individuals manage to win their own court cases.
Outside the courthouse in Washington, demonstrators gathered to denounce Trump’s order and defend birthright citizenship as a foundational American promise.
“We are here because a fundamental promise of America is under attack,” said Ama Frimpong, legal director at CASA, a prominent immigrant advocacy group. “All persons born in the U.S. are citizens of the U.S.”
In a post on his Truth Social platform ahead of the hearing, Trump doubled down on his position, calling birthright citizenship a “stupid policy” that encourages people to enter the country just to give birth.
The court did not indicate when it would issue a ruling, though a decision could take several weeks. It also remains unclear whether the justices will address the broader constitutional validity of ending birthright citizenship or focus solely on the narrower procedural question of court authority.
