The Supreme Court is currently considering whether federal judges overstepped their authority when they temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s directive restricting automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil, called ‘birthright citizenship’.
At the center of the current legal dispute is Trump’s directive instructing the government not to recognize U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants as citizens. Although lower courts have halted the order, the Supreme Court is now tasked with deciding whether such nationwide injunctions are valid and whether the executive order itself holds legal weight.
The Trump administration asserts that the executive order, signed on Trump’s first day after returning to office, should only be suspended for individuals directly involved in the legal challenge. In contrast, states, advocacy groups for immigrants, and expectant parents who obtained national injunctions argue that such broad rulings are essential to prevent inconsistent citizenship policies across different parts of the country.
The outcome of this Supreme Court case could determine not only the future of birthright citizenship but also whether courts will face stricter limits when attempting to block other executive actions by Trump.
Birthright citizenship, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, has long been a subject of legal and political debate. It was challenged in the 19th century but ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. The United States’ stance influenced much of the Western Hemisphere, diverging from the more restrictive policies seen in Europe, Africa, and Asia.
“Granting citizenship to all children born in a country’s territory became more common in the Americas,” according to an American Immigration Council report on birthright citizenship. “After the founding of the United States, other countries in the Western Hemisphere also adopted unrestricted birthplace-based citizenship.”
Many nations across Europe, including Spain, Italy, France, and Germany, as well as countries like India, Iran, and Sudan, also restrict automatic citizenship by birth, the report notes.
“Granting citizenship to all children born in a country’s territory became more common in the Americas,” the American Immigration Council stated in its report on the topic. “After the founding of the United States, other countries in the Western Hemisphere also adopted unrestricted birthplace-based citizenship.”
On May 15, Trump addressed the controversy on social media: “It had nothing to do with Illegal Immigration for people wanting to SCAM our Country, from all parts of the World, which they have done for many years,” he wrote.
He also argued that the constitutional amendment at issue was not intended to apply to temporary visitors. “Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the ‘SUCKERS’ that we are!” Trump wrote.
He added that the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was designed to protect “the BABIES OF SLAVES” and not the children of undocumented immigrants or short-term travelers. “It had nothing to do with Illegal Immigration for people wanting to SCAM our Country, from all parts of the World, which they have done for many years,” Trump reiterated.
