On May 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order aiming to restrict birthright citizenship, a cornerstone of American identity enshrined in the 14th Amendment for over 150 years. The executive order, signed on January 20, 2025, seeks to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas, such as students or temporary workers. This bold move has sparked heated debates, nationwide protests, and a flurry of legal challenges, as Americans grapple with its implications for immigration, constitutional rights, and the nation’s future.
A Historic Debate at the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s hearing focused not only on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order but also on the broader issue of nationwide injunctions—court orders that block policies across the entire country. The administration argued that federal judges overstep their authority by issuing these broad injunctions, which have halted the order’s implementation since its announcement. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, faced tough questions from the justices, who appeared skeptical of the order’s legal grounding.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply criticized the administration’s approach, calling it a “catch-me-if-you-can kind of regime.” She highlighted the chaos that could ensue if individuals must file lawsuits one by one to secure their constitutional rights. Justice Elena Kagan echoed this concern, questioning why the administration avoided asking the Court to rule directly on the order’s constitutionality, suggesting they knew it would likely be struck down. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed to four Supreme Court precedents that she argued the executive order violates, reinforcing the view that it contradicts established law.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This principle, solidified by the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, has long granted citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, with few exceptions. However, the Trump administration contends that the amendment does not apply to children of undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas, a reinterpretation that legal experts and justices alike have called into question.
Protests Erupt Across the Nation
As the Supreme Court deliberated, protests erupted outside its Washington, D.C., courthouse and in cities nationwide. Demonstrators, including immigrant rights advocates, Democratic leaders, and concerned citizens, rallied to defend birthright citizenship. Chants of “birthright citizenship belongs to us!” echoed through the capital, with protesters like Tanjam Jacobson and Olga Urbina, a mother holding her nine-month-old son, visibly opposing the order. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined the crowds, reading from the Constitution and condemning Trump’s remarks calling the U.S. “stupid” for upholding birthright citizenship.
The protests reflect deep public concern about the order’s potential impact. According to estimates from the Migration Policy Institute and Penn State’s Population Research Institute, over 150,000 newborns could be denied citizenship annually if the order takes effect. Critics argue this could create a “patchwork” system, where citizenship varies by state, leaving some children stateless and unable to access social services like Social Security. In Texas, for example, a newborn might be denied citizenship, while in Maryland, another could gain it, creating confusion and inequality.
Legal Challenges Mount
The executive order has faced swift and widespread legal opposition. More than 20 states, led by Democratic attorneys general, along with immigrant rights groups and pregnant immigrants, have filed lawsuits to block it. Three federal judges and appellate court panels have already ruled the order unconstitutional, issuing nationwide injunctions to prevent its enforcement while litigation continues. These injunctions have been a focal point of the Supreme Court’s debate, with the administration arguing they unfairly limit executive power.
The case, known as Trump v. CASA, has raised questions about the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary. The administration’s push to limit nationwide injunctions could have far-reaching effects beyond birthright citizenship, potentially allowing other controversial policies to take effect while legal battles play out. Justices like Neil Gorsuch, a critic of nationwide injunctions, seemed open to scaling back their use, but even conservative justices expressed doubts about the order’s legality.
New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, representing the challenging states, argued that nationwide injunctions are necessary to protect millions of people from policies that violate fundamental rights. He noted that states cannot file class-action lawsuits, making broad injunctions a critical tool to ensure uniformity in citizenship rules. Without them, families could face years of uncertainty, with only those able to afford lawsuits able to protect their rights.
What’s at Stake?
The implications of the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling are profound. If the Court upholds the executive order, it could fundamentally alter the definition of American citizenship. Children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders could be denied access to education, healthcare, and other benefits tied to citizenship. The Los Angeles Times reported that such a change would also burden U.S.-born citizens, who might struggle to prove their own citizenship if their parents’ status is questioned. For example, proving citizenship could require documentation beyond a birth certificate, such as evidence of a parent’s citizenship at the time of birth—a daunting task for many.
Critics also warn of a fragmented system that could undermine the unity of American citizenship. Justice Kagan described the potential for a “crazy” scenario where citizenship depends on geography, creating administrative chaos and inequality. The order could also increase the number of unauthorized migrants in the U.S., as children born without citizenship would lack legal status.
On the other hand, supporters of the executive order, including 19 states that filed an amicus brief, argue that birthright citizenship has been exploited, particularly by those entering the U.S. illegally. Trump himself claimed on Truth Social that the policy benefits “drug cartels” and called for the Supreme Court to act swiftly to avoid “serious trouble” for the country. However, the justices, even those considered conservative, showed little sympathy for this argument during the hearing.
The Road Ahead
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling by the end of June 2025, but the path forward remains uncertain. While the justices seem likely to maintain the block on Trump’s order, they may limit the use of nationwide injunctions, which could affect how future policies are challenged. If the Court avoids ruling on the order’s constitutionality, the issue could linger in lower courts, prolonging uncertainty for millions of families.
For now, the nation watches closely as the debate over birthright citizenship unfolds. The protests, legal battles, and public outcry underscore the deep divisions over immigration and constitutional rights in the U.S. As one protester outside the Supreme Court put it, “This isn’t just about policy—it’s about who gets to call themselves an American.”
Also Know :- Brands Embrace User-Generated Content in 2025 to Build Trust and Engagement
