The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on President Donald Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship by executive order. This potential move, which would challenge over a century of legal precedent and national tradition, asserts that babies born on American soil are automatically U.S. citizens.
The case represents a significant test of Trump's assertion of presidential power, with substantial implications for millions of children and their families.
Understanding Birthright Citizenship
Birthright citizenship is the principle that a child automatically becomes a citizen of the country where they are born, irrespective of their parents' immigration status. This is known as jus soli, or the right of the soil. In contrast, many nations adhere to jus sanguinis, or the right of blood, where citizenship is determined by parental nationality.
In the United States, with limited exceptions, all individuals born on U.S. soil are granted citizenship. For the approximately 3.6 million children born annually in American hospitals, their birth certificate serves as the primary document for obtaining Social Security numbers, passports, and essential early-life benefits. This document has historically been universally accepted as proof of citizenship for purposes such as voter registration, employment, and military service.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868, states that all "persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens. Federal law, codified in 1940, reiterates this language. Court rulings and governmental interpretations have consistently upheld that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on all children born in the U.S., including those born to unauthorized immigrants, asylum seekers, temporary residents, international students, tourists, and seasonal workers.
International Comparison
According to the Pew Research Center, thirty-two other countries have citizenship laws similar to those in the U.S. Approximately 50 more countries have more limited versions of birthright citizenship. Countries in the Western Hemisphere, such as Brazil, Canada, Argentina, and Mexico, have policies that closely mirror American law. Pakistan, Chad, and Mozambique also follow similar principles. European nations, historically, have been more restrictive; France, Greece, and Spain, for example, grant citizenship at birth only to children born to parents who were also born in those countries. Australia, Germany, and the United Kingdom extend automatic citizenship to children born to legal residents.
Trump Administration's Position
President Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term, aiming to end birthright citizenship by reinterpreting the 14th Amendment. The administration contends that children born to parents who are unlawfully in the country or possess temporary legal status, such as tourists, are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. and are therefore ineligible for citizenship.
Under the proposed executive order, citizenship would be restricted to children born to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents who have established a "domicile" in the United States. The President has described the current policy as a "scam" that benefits foreign adversaries and burdens taxpayers by providing financial assistance to children of undocumented individuals.
Arguments for Birthright Citizenship
Birthright citizenship has been a longstanding American tradition, affirmed over time by courts and legislators. The Supreme Court has previously rejected constitutional arguments similar to those now being advanced. In the 1898 case Wong Kim Ark v. U.S., Justice Horace Gray wrote that the 14th Amendment "includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States."
Immigrant advocates and civil liberties groups warn that ending birthright citizenship could negatively impact hundreds of thousands of children born annually to noncitizen parents and create significant bureaucratic challenges for individuals who rely on birth certificates as proof of citizenship. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that approximately 255,000 children born each year to noncitizen parents would lose legal status under the executive order. Some of these children could be rendered stateless, facing difficulties in establishing citizenship in any country.
Potential Consequences of the Ruling
If the Supreme Court upholds Trump's order, federal agencies would need to implement new processes for determining citizenship. This would involve evaluating the legal status of parents before granting citizenship and, consequently, eligibility for Social Security numbers, passports, and other benefits. A U.S. birth certificate alone would no longer be sufficient proof of citizenship for any child.
Immigrant advocates foresee a "bureaucratic nightmare" for all parents, with vulnerable low-income children potentially facing barriers to accessing essential healthcare and nutrition assistance. Furthermore, children not qualifying for U.S. citizenship might become stateless, a status that could make them immediately eligible for deportation in some countries.
While the Trump administration states the executive order would not be retroactive and would only apply to births occurring after its effective date, some legal experts express concern that the underlying legal reasoning could be used by future administrations to challenge the citizenship of individuals born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents. Justice Sonia Sotomayor voiced such concerns during oral arguments, suggesting the government could seek to "unnaturalize people who were born here of illegal residents."
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in Trump v. Barbara before adjourning for its summer recess in early July.