US supreme court to weigh whether Trump can deny birthright citizenship | US supreme court
The US supreme court will hear arguments on Wednesday over whether Trump can overturn generations of precedent and deny birthright citizenship to babies born on US soil, which would affect hundreds of thousands of children each year.
Trump on his first day in office issued an administrative order He sought to eliminate birthright citizenship by invalidating the U.S. constitution or, as his administration claimed, interpreting it correctly, contrary to supreme court precedent.
If the court rules against Trump, it would be a major blow to one of the biggest policy changes that came after the court struck down tariffs, one of Trump’s signature policies. It will likely anger the president, who earlier this week claimed that other countries were “selling citizenship” to the United States and attacked the federal court system as “stupid” on Truth Social.
Democratic state attorneys general and advocacy groups immediately filed a lawsuit challenging the decision, arguing that it exceeded Trump’s authority. The high court will hear Trump v Barbara, a class-action lawsuit filed by parents of children who would be affected by the change.
“This Order seeks to eliminate the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship…threatens them with lifelong ostracism and fear of deportation from the only country they have ever known,” the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote. first application The class-action lawsuit was filed last year in federal court in New Hampshire. “But this is illegal. The Constitution and Congress, not President Trump, determine who has the right to full membership in American society.”
Passed in 1868 during the Reconstruction period following the U.S. civil war to codify the rights of black Americans and reverse the Dred Scott decision, the 14th amendment grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized within the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
The Trump administration argues that the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” means that babies born in the United States to people who are not legally in the country are not citizens. The executive order says this includes situations where neither of a person’s parents are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, or where one parent has legal but temporary status.
The decision will apply to those born in the United States after February 19, 2025. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that this change will significantly increase the unauthorized immigrant population: “an additional 2.7 million by 2045 and 5.4 million by 2075.” Projection published last May He says an average of 255,000 children are born under these parameters each year.
One of the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit is a Honduran citizen who is seeking asylum in the United States and expecting his fourth child. Another is a Taiwanese citizen who has been in the United States for 12 years and whose fourth child will be affected by the decision; His other three children are US citizens. The third is a Brazilian citizen father who has been living in the United States for the last five years and his first child was born in March 2025. After the decision enters into force if it is legally approved.
In the lawsuit, it was stated about the person named Barbara, “She fears that her child will be unfairly deprived of the security, rights and opportunities that come with US citizenship and that her future will be in doubt.”
ACLU argues Ending birthright citizenship would create “a permanent underclass of people born in the United States who are denied their rights as American citizens,” noting that the case carries great stakes “whether America will preserve the tradition from the founding of the country and the constitutional promise that every child born here belongs.”
The President cannot unilaterally overturn a constitutional amendment; This requires congressional action. However, the administration claims that they did not reject the change, but interpreted it according to its intended meaning. The Trump administration is asking the high court to reinterpret the amendment and allow the decision to be enforced, overriding more than 125 years of legal precedent.
The groundbreaking decision on birthright citizenship, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, made clear that a child born to parents of Chinese descent with permanent “domicile” in the United States would become a U.S. citizen at birth under the 14th amendment. Trump administration argues The word “domicile,” meaning permanent residence, is a critical part of the interpretation, although it is not included in the amendment itself.
“Birthright Citizenship was not intended for people who went on vacation to become permanent Citizens of the United States and brought their families with them and always laughed at us being ‘SAMIC’!” the president wrote in Truth Social last year.
The administration is relying in part on the legal arguments of the Washington Post, which promoted white supremacism in the late 1800s. reported. John Eastman, the lawyer who worked with Trump to overturn the 2020 election results, is also a prominent proponent of the effort to eliminate birthright citizenship at Politico. reported.
While most conservative legal experts believe the 14th amendment has been interpreted correctly, this has become increasingly the case in recent years. I came to believe Trump can win. Two legal experts He wrote in the New York Times “The justices will find that the argument for Mr. Trump’s order is stronger than his critics think,” he wrote last year.
