Supreme Court to Hear Critical Birthright Citizenship Case Arguments on May 15th!
by Louis Juricic, Investing.com, April 17, 2025
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will hear arguments on May 15 regarding President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at restricting automatic birthright citizenship. This controversial order is a central aspect of Trump’s stringent immigration policy.
The Supreme Court’s recent unsigned order did not address the Trump administration’s request to limit the scope of three nationwide injunctions that federal judges in Washington state, Massachusetts, and Maryland imposed. These injunctions have currently blocked the January 20 order from being enforced while ongoing legal challenges are resolved.
Trump’s executive order, signed on his first day back in office, instructs federal agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the United States unless they have at least one parent who is an American citizen or a lawful permanent resident. This directive has faced multiple legal challenges, including lawsuits from 22 Democratic state attorneys general, immigrant rights groups, and some expectant mothers, who claim the order violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment states that anyone born in the United States is a citizen.
The Trump administration, however, argues that the 14th Amendment does not apply to individuals who are in the country illegally or those with a lawful but temporary status, such as students or workers on visas. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the administration, stated that the order aligns with the "original meaning, historical understanding, and proper scope of the Citizenship Clause."
Sauer also expressed the administration’s position that universal birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration and "birth tourism," where individuals come to the U.S. to give birth, thereby securing citizenship for their children.
Click Here to Watch/Listen to the Newest Weekly We the People Convention News & Opinion Podcast!
The administration’s stance challenges the longstanding interpretation of an 1898 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which has been seen as a guarantee of citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. The Justice Department contends that this ruling only applies to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States." The upcoming Supreme Court hearing will address these contentious interpretations and the future of birthright citizenship in the U.S.
This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE NEWS AT INVESTING.COM
Johnathan Turley says this Important Case Needs to Bring Clarity to the 14th Amendment
The Supreme Court should settle the birthright debate over the 14th Amendment — because the nation is "about 150 years late in finding out what this amendment means," constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said Tuesday.
In remarks on Fox News' "The Story With Martha MacCallum," the George Washington University professor lamented President Donald Trump's solution — an executive order ending birthright citizenship — "is adding baggage to an already difficult challenge."
"We are about 150 years late in finding out what this amendment means," he said. "It has been a debate since this was first ratified" in 1868.
The wording of the amendment states: "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."
But Turley says the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" comprises "six ill-chosen words" that have never been clarified.
"I can't imagine how people can say with such certainty that this language means that anyone in the United States for any reason can have a citizen when they give birth on our soil," he said. "That is not evident from the text of the amendment. Many people at the time clearly didn't hold that view. . . . There are good faith arguments on both sides, but the Supreme Court has never said with any clarity or finality what it means."
"It is a good thing for this to be reviewed by the [Supreme] Court," he said. "The Supreme Court ruled many years ago that a Chinese family was entitled to citizenship of their child who was born on U.S. soil, but that family was here as legal residents."
