The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday regarding a contentious policy proposed by former President Donald Trump to limit birthright citizenship. The case centers on the lawfulness of Trump’s executive order seeking to narrow the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for those born in the U.S.

Trump's Policy and the 14th Amendment

Announced during his second term, Trump’s executive order would restrict birthright citizenship to individuals with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. This would exclude children born to temporary visitors, including those in the country legally or without authorization, from automatic citizenship.

The policy directly challenges the interpretation of 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.” This clause, ratified after the Civil War, was intended to grant equal rights to formerly enslaved Black people and has historically been understood to apply broadly to those born within U.S. borders.

Legal Challenges and Personal Impact

Trump’s executive order has faced immediate legal challenges and has never been implemented. Courts across the country have blocked the policy, and most legal experts anticipate a difficult battle for the former president to win the case.

The proposed change could affect thousands of births annually. One woman, originally from Argentina and living in Florida on a student visa, expressed her panic upon hearing about the order while pregnant. “My baby was actually going to be one of the first ones impacted. I immediately went into panic mode,” she stated, adding she secured a passport for her now 8-month-old son to ensure his citizenship.

Government's Legal Argument

The administration’s legal argument hinges on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” claiming it has a broader meaning than previously understood. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the clause was primarily intended for children of formerly enslaved people, requiring allegiance solely to the U.S.

Sauer cited the 1884 Supreme Court case Elk v. Wilkins, which addressed why Native Americans were not automatically granted birthright citizenship at the time. He argued this case demonstrated that birth within U.S. territory doesn’t automatically confer citizenship.

Counterarguments and Previous Rulings

Experts in Native American law have questioned the government’s reliance on Elk v. Wilkins, stating it was specific to the unique legal status of tribes. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), leading the legal challenge, argues the 14th Amendment’s text and historical interpretation are clear.

The ACLU also points to the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a U.S. citizen.

Potential Outcomes

The justices may also consider whether the executive order conflicts with existing federal immigration law. The court could rule the order unlawful based on this conflict, avoiding a direct decision on the 14th Amendment and placing the responsibility for change with Congress.

Despite the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, which previously favored Trump in several cases, the court recently ruled against him in February regarding tariffs. Trump responded with criticism of the justices who opposed him.