Is citizenship by birth a constitutional guarantee – or a policy that can be changed by executive order?
That’s the question the U.S. Supreme Court will confront this May, when it hears oral arguments in a high-stakes case involving President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order to end automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or non-permanent residents. For generations, the principle of jus soli—citizenship by birthplace—has been seen as settled law. Now, that foundation faces its most serious challenge in over a century.
With implications for immigration, constitutional interpretation, and the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary, this case could fundamentally reshape what it means to be a citizen of the United States.
The Executive Order: A Direct Challenge to the 14th Amendment?
On his first day back in office, President Trump signed an executive order declaring that the children of unauthorized immigrants and temporary visa holders would no longer be granted U.S. citizenship by birth. The administration argued that these children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the constitutional sense and therefore do not qualify under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
Within days, federal courts in multiple states blocked enforcement of the order, citing serious constitutional concerns. The administration appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to take up the issue—setting the stage for a potentially historic ruling.
The Constitutional Language at Stake
The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”
This clause was drafted in the wake of the Civil War to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved individuals and their children. At the time, its purpose was clear: to ensure that birth, not race or lineage, was the foundation of American belonging.
But what did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean in 1868? That’s where interpretations diverge.
The Precedent: Wong Kim Ark and a Century of Stability
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese parents—who were legal residents but not citizens—was a U.S. citizen by birth. That case has been the cornerstone of the modern understanding of birthright citizenship for more than a century.
Under this precedent, nearly all children born on U.S. soil are granted citizenship, with narrow exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats or occupying military personnel.
Supporters of the executive order now argue that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided or misapplied and that the Constitution permits a narrower interpretation—one that would exclude children whose parents are in the country illegally or temporarily.
Can the President Unilaterally Redefine Citizenship?
This case raises not only questions about the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment but also about executive power. Can a president, through executive order, reinterpret a constitutional provision that has stood unchallenged for generations?
Traditionally, changes to the meaning of constitutional language come through judicial rulings or constitutional amendments—not unilateral executive action. Critics of the order argue that allowing such a shift would set a dangerous precedent, enabling future presidents to redefine core rights with the stroke of a pen.
A Nation of Laws—Or of Geography?
For Americans watching this case unfold, the implications are deeply personal. If the Court sides with the administration, millions of children born in the United States could find their citizenship status questioned. It could also lead to increased federal oversight of parental immigration status at birth—a prospect many see as chilling.
Supporters of the order say it’s a necessary correction to what they view as a misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. They argue that birthright citizenship has encouraged illegal immigration and so-called “birth tourism,” and that the Constitution was never meant to confer automatic citizenship so broadly.
But opponents warn that ending birthright citizenship could create a permanent underclass of stateless individuals, raise due process concerns, and undermine the equal protection principles that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to secure.
The Constitutional Questions Ahead
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments, several key constitutional issues are at play:
- What did the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment mean by “subject to the jurisdiction”?
- Does Wong Kim Ark still govern today’s vastly different immigration landscape?
- Can the executive branch reinterpret the Constitution without new legislation or constitutional amendment?
- What are the implications for civil liberties and equal protection if citizenship can be denied based on parental status?
Looking Ahead
The Court’s decision will reverberate far beyond this case. It will help determine who gets to define American identity: the Constitution, Congress, the courts—or the president. It will also test the strength of legal precedent and the resilience of constitutional norms.
Whether the justices uphold or strike down the executive order, one thing is certain: this case will become a defining moment in the ongoing conversation about citizenship, immigration, and constitutional governance in the 21st century.