The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments concerning President Donald Trump’s executive order, aimed at ending birthright citizenship within the United States. This executive action seeks to redefine the understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, particularly its provision that grants citizenship to individuals born in the US. The amendment, enacted in 1868, reversed the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision by affirming citizenship by birthright (White House).
President Trump issued the order in January 2025, contending that the amendment was never meant to apply universally to anyone born on US soil. This decision echoes a radical originalist interpretation focused on the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” a point Trump argues excludes children of foreign nationals born in the US. The order specifies that citizenship should not extend to individuals born under certain circumstances, such as when both parents are not citizens or lawfully permanent residents (Supreme Court).
Historically, the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment has rested on the precedent set by the 1898 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. This case affirmed citizenship rights to all children born in the US, including those of resident aliens (Jurist). However, three federal courts have blocked Trump’s order following challenges to its legality. Appeals courts have consistently rejected efforts by the Trump administration to overturn these lower court decisions or lift the injunctions that prevent the order’s implementation (Jurist).
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the arguments on May 15, it has declined the administration’s request to allow the enforcement of the executive order pending a final decision (Jurist). This decision marks a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment, with significant implications for the legal landscape of US citizenship.