The Supreme Court has not yet made a decision on whether to review President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, a practice grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment that grants citizenship to nearly everyone born in the United States. Although the court did not act on the matter this Monday, there is a possibility it may reconsider the government’s petition during its private conference on Friday, December 5, according to SCOTUSblog.
This procedural pause, known as a relist, allows the justices additional time to evaluate the case, especially if they are seeking further agreement among themselves. It has become part of the Supreme Court’s conventional, though unofficial, practice to relist cases before granting a review. If the court decides to hear the case on its merits, it could lead to oral arguments by early 2026 and a decision by mid-2026.
Trump’s executive order, which has not been enforced due to ongoing litigation, seeks to restrict the automatic entitlement of citizenship to those born in the U.S. whose parents are either illegal immigrants or temporary visitors. Multiple lawsuits have been filed against the order, and federal judges have issued temporary blocks, preventing its enforcement as the legal battles continue.
The Trump administration had previously approached the Supreme Court, not to validate the order itself, but to contest the issue of “universal” injunctions issued by federal courts that prevent the enforcement of the policy nationwide. The Supreme Court, in June, ruled that district court judges typically lack the authority to issue such nationwide orders, thus prompting further legal challenges to persist in the lower courts.
Recent rulings by lower courts, including a preliminary injunction from a federal district judge in New Hampshire and a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, have gone against Trump’s executive order, deeming it inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment. In requesting a Supreme Court review, the administration argued that the citizenship clause is meant for newly freed slaves and their descendants, rather than children of non-citizens. The challengers, however, contest this interpretation, citing longstanding precedent and subsequent federal law.