Trump Administration Pushes Supreme Court to End Birthright Citizenship

President Trump after signing an executive order. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Washington, D.C. – 26 September 2025 - In a bold escalation of its immigration agenda, the Trump administration on Friday petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to lift injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at curtailing birthright citizenship, a cornerstone of American constitutional law for over 150 years.The move thrusts the contentious issue back before the justices, potentially setting the stage for a landmark ruling that could redefine who qualifies as a U.S. citizen by birth.

The executive order, signed on Trump's first day in office on January 20, 2025, seeks to deny automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants, individuals on temporary visas, or those engaged in "birth tourism." Implementation has been stalled since four federal district courts issued nationwide injunctions, ruling that the policy violates the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, 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."

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, in petitions filed with the Court, argued that the 14th Amendment—ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants—was never intended to extend to children of non-citizens without deeper ties to the U.S. "The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, not to the children of illegal aliens, birth tourists, and temporary visitors," Sauer wrote.He contended that mere birth on U.S. soil is insufficient, emphasizing the clause's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language as requiring full allegiance, a interpretation that echoes Trump's long-standing campaign rhetoric on immigration.

The administration's appeal follows a July 2025 decision by a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, which in a 2-1 ruling upheld a lower court's block on the order.The dissenting judge questioned the standing of the states challenging the policy but stopped short of endorsing its constitutionality. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision narrowed the scope of nationwide injunctions in related cases but declined to address the order's merits directly.

Legal experts and opponents swiftly decried the filing as an overreach. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which sued on behalf of immigrant parents in New Hampshire, called it "a dangerous assault on the constitution. This is not about immigration reform; it's about rewriting the 14th Amendment through the back door." said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt in a statement. The lawsuits originated from a coalition of Democratic-led states including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon, who argued the policy would strain public resources and undermine equal protection.

The Supreme Court's 1898 precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark has long upheld birthright citizenship (jus soli) for children of non-citizen parents, including those born to Chinese immigrants ineligible for naturalization at the time. Administration lawyers dismissed this as outdated, claiming modern interpretations must account for illegal immigration's scale—estimated at hundreds of thousands of "anchor babies" annually.

Public reaction on social media was polarized, with conservative voices hailing it as a victory for "America First" policies and critics labeling it xenophobic.

The Court is unlikely to act immediately; challengers have 30 days to respond, and oral arguments could be scheduled for early 2026, with a decision possibly by June.If granted, this case could join the roster of high-stakes immigration battles, testing the conservative majority's appetite for revisiting foundational rights.

Trump, speaking at a rally in Florida earlier this week, teased the appeal: "We're going to make sure only real Americans get the full benefits—it's about time." As the nation braces for the outcome, the stakes extend far beyond policy, touching on the very identity of the American dream.