SCOTUS Agrees to Consider Birthright Citizen Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. At this stage, the justices have agreed to consider whether three nationwide injunctionsshould be allowed to stand.
Facts of the Case
The Supreme Court will hear three cases, which have been consolidated for Supreme Court review: Trump v. CASA, Inc., Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey. All three cases involve legal challenges to President Trump’s Executive Order regarding birthright citizenship, entitled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, Exec. Order No. 14156 (Citizenship Order or Order).
The Citizenship Order proclaimed that birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to children born in the United States when: (1) their mother was unlawfully present in the country and their father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a permanent resident at the time of the child’s birth; or (2) when their mother was lawfully, but temporarily, present in the United States and their father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a permanent resident.
In support of the Executive Order, attorneys for the Trump Administration argue that birthright citizenship does not include the children of legal and illegal aliens because such persons are not “subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction” as set forth in Constitution’s Citizenship Clause. Pursuant to the 14th Amendment: “All person 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 14th Amendment repudiated Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), which infamously misinterpreted the Constitution to deny U.S. citizenship to people of African descent based solely on their race. Congress has reaffirmed the Citizenship Clause in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), while the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the existence of birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. It held that the 14th Amendment “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children born here of resident aliens.”
Citing this precedent, the Executive Order was quickly met with legal challenges. Three district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington have issued nationwide injunctions at the behest of 22 States, two organizations, and seven individuals.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Trump Administration contends that the nationwide injunctions are overly broad. It is seeking to limit the scope of the injunctions to cover only those individuals directly impacted by the relevant court orders.
“These cases — which involve challenges to the President’s January 20, 2025 Executive Order concerning birthright citizenship — raise important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border,” Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote. “But at this stage, the government comes to this Court with a ‘modest’ request: while the parties litigate weighty merits questions, the Court should restrict the scope of multiple preliminary injunctions that purport[t] to cover every person… in the country, limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts’ power.”
The challengers have urged the Court to leave the injunctions in place. “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,” Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell argued.
On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to consider oral arguments on the Trump Administration’s application for partial stay. The justices will consider the following question: “Whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts’ preliminary injunctions except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states.”
Oral arguments will be held on May 15, 2025. Please stay tuned for updates.
Previous Articles
SCOTUS Agrees to Consider Birthright Citizen Cases
by DONALD SCARINCI on May 21, 2025
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s execut...
SCOTUS Rules Non-Citizens Must Challenge Removal Under Alien Enemies Act
by DONALD SCARINCI on May 6, 2025
In Trump v. J.G.G., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that non-citizens challenging their removal under ...
Causing Physical Harm Always Involves “Use of Force”
by DONALD SCARINCI on April 29, 2025
In Delligatti v. United States, 604 U.S. ____ (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the knowing ...
The Amendments
-
Amendment1
- Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
- Freedom of Speech
- Freedoms of Press
- Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
-
Amendment2
- The Right to Bear Arms
-
Amendment4
- Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
-
Amendment5
- Due Process
- Eminent Domain
- Rights of Criminal Defendants
Preamble to the Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.