Trump officials ask Supreme Court to uphold birthright citizenship ban
Justice Department appeals lower-court blocks as the case moves toward the high court in the new term.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to uphold its executive order ending birthright citizenship, a policy that would deny citizenship to children born in the United States to migrants who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas. The order, signed by President Donald Trump on his first day back in office, has been blocked from taking effect by lower courts after a series of lawsuits argued it was unconstitutional. The administration argues the policy is a matter of border security and national sovereignty, while opponents contend it violates the 14th Amendment.
The Justice Department filed a petition on Friday seeking to overturn the lower-court rulings and restore a path for the order to take effect. In its filing, the department argued that the injunctions “invalidated a policy of prime importance” to border security and that the ongoing blocks “reward the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.” The brief added that the injunctions undermine the administration’s aim to control immigration through executive action.
In June, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal judge cannot block a presidential order in the same way as a district court might, a decision that narrowed the scope of nationwide injunctions. The ruling does not eliminate the possibility of judicial blocks altogether; judges can still halt the effects of a policy for the plaintiffs who challenge it, allowing litigation to proceed while the dispute is resolved. The current filing seeks to have the high court decide the matter in its new term, which starts on October 6.
Beyond the legal questions, the case touches long-running demographic and policy questions about birthright citizenship. Pew Research data show that about 250,000 babies were born to unauthorized immigrant parents in 2016, a 36% decrease from a 2007 peak. By 2022, the latest year for which Pew has data, there were 1.2 million U.S. citizens born to unauthorized immigrant parents. Researchers note that the children of these births can have children of their own, and think-tank analysis from the Migration Policy Institute estimates that ending birthright citizenship could, over time, increase the number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States to about 4.7 million by 2050.
Trump has repeatedly linked citizenship policy to his broader immigration agenda. In an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press last December, he said he favored deporting the children of unauthorized immigrants along with their parents, arguing that keeping families together would require them to be sent back. “I don’t want to be breaking up families,” he said, and added that the only way to avoid breaking up families was to “send them all back.” The administration’s current court filing reiterates its view that the Constitution’s language requires a different interpretation from the one commonly understood by supporters of birthright citizenship.
Supporters of birthright citizenship contend that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, a clause they say cannot be meaningfully limited by executive action. The Trump administration contends that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children born to people in the country illegally or on temporary visas, arguing that imposing citizenship in those cases would contravene the amendment’s intent and the nation’s immigration framework.
Legal observers note the case sits at the crossroads of constitutional interpretation and executive power, with potential implications for how future administrations might redefine citizenship and immigration through executive orders or agency action. The Supreme Court’s upcoming term will determine whether the administration can proceed with its policy or be constrained by courts during the ongoing litigation, and it could clarify the extent to which federal judges can block presidential orders before full judicial review.
As the term approaches, lawmakers and advocates on both sides of the issue are preparing for a high-stakes ruling that could redefine who may be considered a citizen by birth in the United States and how the executive branch can pursue immigration policy in the absence of congressional action.