Supreme Court Hears Historic Birthright Citizenship Challenge

Constitutional Foundation Under Attack

The Supreme Court heard arguments today on whether all children born in the United States can continue to automatically receive citizenship , a case that could cast a shadow over the citizenship of millions upon millions of Americans, going back generations . The challenge stems from President Donald Trump's January 2025 executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for babies born in the United States if their parents are in this country either illegally or temporarily .

Birthright citizenship became part of the Constitution in 1868 with the passage of the 14th Amendment, which 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 clause was intended to overrule the Supreme Court's notorious 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, holding that a Black person whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as enslaved persons was not entitled to any protection from the federal courts because he was not a U.S. citizen .

Trump's order has never gone into effect, as challenges to it were filed almost immediately, and several federal judges around the country temporarily barred the government from implementing the order throughout the country while litigation over the order's constitutionality continued . The case has the potential to upend the guarantee of birthright citizenship in effect since a Supreme Court decision in 1898 that extended citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States .

Legal Arguments and Historical Precedent

The Trump administration contends that the executive order's limitations on birthright citizenship are consistent with the rules used in early English and U.S. history, under which children were entitled to citizenship only if they were born within the allegiance of the government – that is, owing the government a duty of support and loyalty . They argue the citizenship clause of the Constitution's 14th Amendment was meant to apply to newly freed African American slaves after the Civil War, not to children of immigrants .

Most legal scholars and historians disagree with that interpretation . The administration also cites the Supreme Court's 1898 decision in the case of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to parents of Chinese descent , though that case actually established broader birthright citizenship protections. The ACLU argues that the men who wrote the 14th Amendment deliberately chose to confer automatic citizenship on the child, not the parent, based on the founding principle that "in America we do not punish children for the sins of their fathers, but instead we wipe the slate clean" .

Practical Implications and Public Opinion

The stakes are enormous. Only about three dozen countries around the world, mostly in the Western Hemisphere, offer automatic birthright citizenship , and ending the policy would impact hundreds of thousands of children annually. Without the right to citizenship, access to services like Medicaid could be complicated for many children, and schools would have to find ways to replace lost funding for students with disabilities .

Public opinion is nuanced on birthright citizenship and can depend on how pollsters ask the question, with surveys showing people largely supportive when asked about it in general, including a Public Religion Research Institute survey finding two-thirds in favor of granting citizenship "regardless of their parents' citizenship status" . However, Americans are divided by a 50%-49% margin on giving birthright citizenship to those born to parents who are in the country illegally .

Separate Supreme Court Ruling on Conversion Therapy

In a separate decision yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Colorado's ban on "conversion therapy" for LGBTQ+ children violates the First Amendment, with the justices agreeing with a licensed counselor challenging the law that the ban discriminates against her based on the views that she expresses in her talk therapy . Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that "the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country" and "reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely" .

The decision is likely to have national implications as more than 20 states have similar laws, with the major ruling casting doubt on similar prohibitions in 30 states . Studies have linked the practice to higher rates of depression and suicidal thoughts for LGBTQ people , though only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that the ruling "threatens to impair states' ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect" .

A decision from the Supreme Court on birthright citizenship is expected before the court's summer