Trump administration asks Supreme Court to review birthright citizenship executive order
Administration seeks high court review of bid to narrow birthright citizenship; ACLU counters; a decision could redefine the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment
The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to review President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, a move critics say would upend a long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The administration’s filing comes as the American Civil Liberties Union and allied groups filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court in New Hampshire challenging the order.
The filing underscores a legal clash that stretches back to the Reconstruction era and centers on whether the United States will continue to recognize most children born on American soil as citizens. The administration contends the order narrows citizenship to children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, potentially denying automatic citizenship to many children born in the United States each year.
The dispute turns on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 Supreme Court decision that established jus soli — citizenship by birth on U.S. soil — with narrow exceptions. The order would be read to alter that interpretation and could reshape the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Legal scholars remain divided on how to read the Framers’ intent. Some argue they borrowed British jus soli traditions and that Reconstruction-era lawmakers expanded citizenship to include formerly enslaved people and their descendants. Others contend that the text, history, and structure of the Constitution support a broader approach, while still acknowledging limits imposed by the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Supporters of the order have argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires full and lawful allegiance to the United States, not merely being born on U.S. soil. John Eastman, who advised on drafting the policy, has asserted that the Constitution requires both birth on U.S. soil and “complete” jurisdiction — allegiance to the United States rather than to a foreign sovereign.
The order has already faced multiple challenges. Federal courts initially blocked it with broad injunctions, though the Supreme Court later narrowed those rulings. In a recent dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that class actions could provide a pathway for challengers and that lower courts should act swiftly to address the order’s impact on families.
The ACLU’s new lawsuit in New Hampshire reflects that strategy. “Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,” said Cody Wofsy, an attorney with the ACLU. “We are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.” Devon Chaffee, executive director of ACLU-NH, called the order “an unlawful attempt to entrench racial hierarchies.” Karla McKanders of the Legal Defense Fund described the move as an unconstitutional effort to redefine citizenship and its protections.
Fox News Digital has requested comment from the White House and the ACLU and its partner organizations.
The White House has not publicly commented on the latest filing, and advocates on both sides expect the case to move through the courts in the months ahead. As the administration presses its Supreme Court bid, observers say the outcome could alter both citizenship norms and immigration policy, with effects that could extend beyond birthright itself.
Observers note that a final ruling could take months and would require navigating a complex history of constitutional interpretation, evolving immigration policy, and the limits of executive action. In the meantime, the current status quo on birthright citizenship remains the product of prior court decisions and congressional actions, not the president’s order alone, until the courts resolve the challenge.
