Who Belongs? The Fight for Birthright Citizenship

Spring 2026

Written by: Alina Gudeli

Edited by: Leah Smith

Although deemed pillars of American identity within political and societal spheres, immigration and citizenship have become entrenched in legal and ideological battles that question their very existence. Most recently, this battle has culminated into the Supreme Court case Trump v. Barbara. This upcoming decision will determine if birthright citizenship is truly unconditional – calling into question a centuries-old standard. After the federal courts blocked several executive orders aimed at ending birthright citizenship, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class action lawsuit citing a breach in the Constitution.The practice of unconditional ‘birthright citizenship’, also known as jus soli, can be found in around 30 countries worldwide, with many others including similar but limited legal frameworks within their immigration policies. In the United States, the road to such broad inclusion has been paved with court cases, mass immigration, and a series of new lines drawn in the sand. 

As reestablished by Dred Scott v. Stanford, citizenship was granted solely to “free white persons”, citing that formerly enslaved black persons did not qualify [1]. Fights for expanded naturalization occurred for almost a century after this infamous decision, but arguments for the incorporation succeeded much sooner. With its foundations resting most famously on the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment grew to include the children of all non-citizens with a few exceptions. President Trump’s current actions intend to revoke this ability as part of his anti-immigration campaign. While it is unlikely that the results of this case will completely remove this clause, attempts to revoke birthright citizenship will create more limitations and avenues for change that will affect immigrants in America. With current attitudes towards immigration status and processes shifting towards judgment and hatred, the result of Trump v. Barbara is highly anticipated. If the Supreme Court does not uphold the Constitution, the consequences could be catastrophic, leading to further degradation of vital amendments.

In a decision expected by July 2026, the Supreme Court will vote to determine the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The clause referenced for this case is the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment, which declares that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” [2]. Signed on January 20, 2025, the executive order in question is titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” In this EO, the President asserts that the Fourteenth Amendment “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States” [3]. He cites the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause as a means of prohibiting children whose parents do not permanently or legally reside in the US from this right [4]. The order was intended to take effect 30 days after its creation, however, it faced immediate legal repercussions, preventing its implementation. 

Almost immediately, civil activism groups filed class action lawsuits against the EO, citing its breach of the Fourteenth Amendment. Concurrently, multiple federal judges blocked the order granting multi-state or nationwide injunctions to protect citizens from a "blatantly unconstitutional” action [5]. This resulted in the first Supreme Court case and decision on June 27,2025: Trump v. CASA Inc. The justices found that attempts at universal injunctions “likely exceeded the equitable authority” granted to them by Congress [6]. This, however, did not stop the courts from utilizing the exceptions to that decision to continue to block the order. Such widespread commitment to defend birthright citizenship was then furthered through Trump v. Barbara. 

Headed by the ACLU and backed by various other civil rights organizations, this suit claims that President Trump’s EO represents a breach of the Constitution. It cites United States v. Wong Kim Ark, a case that affirmed the contents of the citizenship clause in 1898. Not only does the ACLU see this as an injustice for the many infants that could be affected, but it has also been deemed an “unlawful attempt to rewrite the Constitution in a way that is antithetical to who we are as a nation.” [7] The designation of the United States as a ‘nation of immigrants’ has been championed since its foundation. Attempts to dismantle a key aspect of that ideology encourages other actions that further the fight against immigration this administration is leading. Concerns have been raised about limitations to infant health insurance as well. Implementing requirements for proof of citizenship could delay vital treatment to newborns in distress [8]. 

Arguments for the installation of this executive order focus on logistical concerns regarding parental status and the clause’s original purpose. President Trump and his supporters believe that a parent’s lack of legal permanent residence to the US should bar the child from being granted citizenship. Further points were made regarding the amendment’s use as a response to Dred Scott v. Sanford, overturning the decision that descendants of slaves were not citizens. Given the actual use of the amendment since its creation, it is apparent that the clause has been applied to many different groups and situations regardless of its original intent. Although deliberations are ongoing, one could argue that a decision deeming the EO as unconstitutional is highly plausible. Despite this fairly reasonable assumption, it is important to decipher why the case was made and what happens if the Court rules in favor of the State. 

This case marked the first time President Trump attended oral arguments for a Supreme Court hearing [9]. It has been made evident through this action, and the existence of this case in the first place, that the results hold significant weight in current US politics. While implementing a new interpretation of the Constitution would make this a landmark case in its own right, the broader implications of such a decision could be catastrophic for similarly debated issues. 

Although occurring after Trump’s first term, Dobbs v. Jackson (2022), the case that overturned the federal protections for abortions granted by Roe v. Wade (1973), was made possible through his appointment of three conservative justices in the years prior. This decision led to a crackdown on abortion rights, with conservative states seriously limiting, completely banning, or even criminalizing the medical procedure. Limiting an aspect of healthcare that is, in some cases, a life saving procedure, has already led to deaths that could have been prevented with medical intervention. With similar worries surrounding the current case, these decisions are affecting more than just legislature; they are affecting livelihoods. In accepting this challenge to the Constitution, the Supreme Court would affirm a dangerously unconstitutional order that expands executive power and promotes future interpretations. Given the wide scope of rights granted by this document, standing by the Constitution is vital. Citizenship has appeared at the center of many current political debates, with similar concerns for rights appearing in response to the SAVE Act. The act’s requirement for proof of citizenship when voting in federal elections creates difficulties for a variety of groups. Married women who have changed their last names, face uncertainty with voter eligibility, as their passports and accepted IDs won’t match their birth certificates [10].  

Each example explores an attempt to limit the rights of citizens, highlighting the emerging power struggle at the center of this administration. Trump v. Barbara will provide a clear answer as to the legality behind such sweeping reform. Given previous actions by the Trump administration, as well as other current attempts to limit rights, it is imperative that the Supreme Court recognizes the clear unconstitutional action taking place. Birthright citizenship should always have a place in American society, as it has for over 100 years.  

References

[1] Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857).

[2] U.S. Const. amdt. 14, § 1, cl. 2.

[3]Exec. Order No. 14,160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (Jan. 20, 2025). 

[4] U.S. Const. amdt. 14, § 1, cl. 2.

[5] Tierney Sneed, “Judge blocks Trump’s ‘blatantly unconstitutional’ executive order that aims to end birthright citizenship”, (January 23, 2025), https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/23/politics/birthright-citizenship-lawsuit-hearing-seattle

[6] Trump v. CASA Inc. 606 U.S. 831 (2025) 

[7] ACLU (2026) Supreme Court arguments wrap in landmark challenge to Trump Birthright Citizenship Executive Order, American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-arguments-wrap-in-landmark-challenge-to-trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order.

[8] Kelly Whitener and Joan Alker, “The Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Decision Could Dramatically Impact Newborns’ Access to Health Care”, (April 10, 2026), https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2026/04/10/the-supreme-courts-birthright-citizenship-decision-could-dramatically-impact-newborns-access-to-health-care/.

[9] Ann E. Marimow, Miriam Jordan, and Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Trump Attends Supreme Court Oral Arguments, Then Leaves an Hour In (April 1, 2026, Updated April 3, 2026) https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-visit.html.

[10] Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, H.R. 22, 119th Cong. (2025).