...
By Hollie Silverman
News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard a challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett saying the administration’s reading of the 14th Amendment would introduce “a new kind of citizenship.”
Members of the court’s conservative bloc, including Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., Justice Neil Gorsuch and Barrett, pressed the government’s arguments, with Roberts describing a key move as “quirky” and telling the solicitor general, “Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.”
The Context
The order, signed on Trump’s first day back in office in January 2025, would deny automatic citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and to many foreign nationals in the country on temporary visas, upending a widely accepted understanding of the 14th Amendment and longstanding federal law.
Read More on Politics
Opponents say the policy would affect roughly 200,000 babies born each year and could leave some children stateless.
Researchers and local officials have warned of far-reaching consequences, including growth in the undocumented population, mixed-status families, and administrative burdens to verify parentage and immigration status at birth.
Trump attended Wednesday's arguments from the public gallery in a presidential first before leaving abruptly just before noon.
...
What To Know
The justices heard Trump v. Barbara, which contests whether the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause—“all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”—guarantees citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil.
Lower courts uniformly blocked Trump’s order as likely unconstitutional and contrary to federal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1401, which mirrors the amendment’s language, the Associated Press (AP) reported.
In 1898, the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to noncitizen parents of Chinese ancestry, was a U.S. citizen, affirming the “ancient and fundamental rule” of jus soli with narrow exceptions that include children of diplomats, hostile occupiers, and then-exempt tribal members, according to the report.
Barrett said the administration’s theory would create “a new kind of citizenship,” questioning why such a model was not debated during the 14th Amendment’s ratification if that was its design.
Chief Justice Roberts pushed back on the government’s reliance on modern concerns such as birth tourism, telling Solicitor General D. John Sauer, “Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” after Sauer said, “We’re in a new world now.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed the practicalities of proof, asking, “Are we bringing women in for depositions? How are we figuring this out?” The New York Times (NYT) reported.
What People Are Saying
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, during oral argument, said Wednesday: "If they were going to invent an entirely new kind of citizenship, like an American brand, why wouldn't we have seen more discussion of that*?"*
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said during oral arguments: "I am looking at your position in this case, and it boils down to requiring us to do at least these two things. One is believe that the framers were not importing the common law rule and understanding of birthright citizenship. And the second is to believe that what they were doing was departing from that common law rule in the way that you suggest, that is, in that they were seeking to have this turn on domicile. I think you have a number of hurdles to accomplish those two things."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting from a 2025 injunction ruling, as cited by the Associated Press: "Children born in the United States and subject to its laws are United States citizens.”
What Happens Next
The court is expected to issue a decision by late June or early July. It could rule on statutory grounds to resolve the dispute without addressing the full scope of the 14th Amendment, or take up the constitutional question directly
If the administration loses on the statute, it could seek legislation in Congress, which has repeatedly considered but not passed measures to curb birthright citizenship.
Experts said enforcing limits would be expensive and complex in a decentralized vital-records system, likely requiring new federal verification infrastructure and risking errors that could render infants stateless, the NYT reported.
In a polarized era, the center is dismissed as bland. At Newsweek, ours is different: The Courageous Center—it's not "both sides," it's sharp, challenging and alive with ideas. We follow facts, not factions. If that sounds like the kind of journalism you want to see thrive, we need you.
When you become a Newsweek Member, you support a mission to keep the center strong and vibrant. Members enjoy: Ad-free browsing, exclusive content and editor conversations. Help keep the center courageous. Join today.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines