Supreme Court Appears Divided Over Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in a case challenging the Trump administration's effort to limit who gets birthright citizenship.

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared divided on Thursday as it heard over two hours of oral arguments concerning the legality of President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship.

The case centers on Trump's directive, issued on his first day in office this year, which states that children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders are not entitled to automatic citizenship. This stance directly challenges the long-standing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which has, since an 1898 ruling, guaranteed citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil.

In response to Trump’s order, immigrant rights organizations and 22 states filed lawsuits. Multiple federal district courts issued nationwide injunctions, blocking the administration from enforcing the policy. When appellate courts declined to lift those injunctions while litigation continues, the Trump administration escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, asking it to eliminate the use of nationwide injunctions altogether.

During Thursday’s session, the justices offered mixed signals. While conservative members of the Court have previously criticized the use of nationwide injunctions, they appeared more cautious this time—particularly after Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the Fourteenth Amendment has been misinterpreted for over a century.

“This order reflects the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors,” Sauer said. He also argued that lower court judges had overstepped their constitutional authority.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the practicality of Sauer’s argument, asking whether the courts would be powerless if a president suddenly ordered mass gun seizures: “Would we have to wait until every plaintiff whose gun is taken comes into court?”

Justice Elena Kagan challenged the notion of upending a consistent, historical definition of citizenship: “Let’s just assume you’re dead wrong. How do we maintain a single national rule of citizenship?”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Sauer when he seemed to hedge on whether the administration would follow lower court rulings. “Did I understand you correctly... that the government might reserve the right not to follow a circuit court precedent?”

Sauer’s reply: “There are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice.”

Practical concerns were also raised. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked what hospitals and states are expected to do with newborns under the executive order. Sauer responded that federal officials would determine the necessary documentation, but added, “We just don’t know,” when asked if this applied to all newborns.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the government’s position as one that would force every individual to seek legal redress: “Your argument seems to turn our justice system into a catch-me-if-you-can kind of regime.”

Sauer suggested class action lawsuits as a solution, but attorney Jeremy Feigenbaum, representing the states, warned it would create “unprecedented chaos on the ground.”

Justice Samuel Alito expressed concerns about the broad power of district judges to issue nationwide injunctions but appeared unconvinced that class actions would resolve the issue, questioning the overall purpose of the administration’s argument.

Chief Justice John Roberts noted the value of giving appellate courts sufficient time to weigh in before emergency matters reach the Supreme Court, underscoring the potential for rushed decision-making.

A decision in the case is expected by early summer.