The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments this week concerning President Trump's executive order aimed at terminating birthright citizenship for babies born in the U.S. This high-stakes case could redefine a fundamental constitutional protection.

Trump's Arguments Against Birthright Citizenship

In the run-up to the April 1 oral arguments, Trump intensified his criticism of the practice that automatically grants citizenship to U.S.-born infants. He asserted that this long-standing policy is being exploited by wealthy foreign nationals.

Trump also claimed that birthright citizenship was originally intended solely for the children of formerly enslaved people. Furthermore, he suggested that the United States is an international outlier in maintaining this policy.

Supreme Court Timeline and Lower Court Rulings

The legal challenge to Trump’s order began on his first day in office, seeking to end automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children. Lower courts have since ruled that the executive order exceeds constitutional authority.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its final ruling on the matter by July 4.

Analyzing Claims on Birth Tourism

While some foreign nationals do travel to the U.S. specifically to secure citizenship for their children, this practice represents a small fraction of annual births. Federal data offers limited insight, as no specific U.S. agency tracks the exact number of these instances.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed 9,500 births in 2024 to parents listing a non-U.S. address. This figure likely includes individuals on long-term visas, such as students, rather than just tourists.

Existing Regulations and Enforcement

U.S. immigration law already addresses this issue. According to the Niskanen Center, tourist visas explicitly cannot be granted for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child through birth.

Immigration officers possess the authority to deny entry to pregnant women on tourist visas if they suspect the primary intent of the visit is to give birth on American soil. Amanda Frost, an immigration law professor at the University of Virginia, noted, "If birth tourism is a problem, the answer is to enforce that regulation.”

Historical Context of the 14th Amendment

In a March 30 Truth Social post, Trump contended that birthright citizenship relates only to “the BABIES OF SLAVES!” citing the timing of the legislation near the Civil War's end.

However, the concept of birthright citizenship in the U.S. legal system can be traced back further, to 1608 and Calvin’s Case in British common law. This early decision conferred subjectship—the precursor to citizenship—on nearly all children born in Scotland.

The 14th Amendment's Scope

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, states that "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.”

Legal scholars confirm the amendment's intent extended beyond its immediate post-slavery context. Gabriel Chin, a UC Davis law professor, stated the amendment “unquestionably intended to cover the children of unauthorized migrants, namely the children of enslaved persons brought here by criminals after the prohibition of the slave trade.”

Potential Impact of Ending Birthright Citizenship

If implemented, Trump’s order would affect an estimated 255,000 babies born annually over several decades, according to a legal brief filed by 141 professors opposing the measure.

The brief argued that removing access to citizenship would negatively impact these children's future opportunities, including their ability to attend college and contribute economically.