The U.S. Supreme Court is set to take up one of the most consequential constitutional battles in a generation—whether children born on American soil to undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors are entitled to citizenship at birth. The case, which will be argued in spring 2026 and likely decided by early summer, follows a sweeping executive order issued by President Donald Trump in January 2025, fundamentally challenging a tradition that has defined American identity for more than 125 years.
Trump’s executive order, signed on January 20, 2025, on the first day of his second term, states that children born in the United States would not automatically receive citizenship if even one parent is illegally residing in the country or is not an American citizen. This marked a dramatic departure from the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which, since its ratification in 1868, has been understood to grant citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ status. According to MENAFN, Trump framed the order as a cornerstone of his broader crackdown on illegal immigration and a bid to reshape long-standing constitutional precedent.
The executive order, however, was met with immediate legal resistance. Several lower courts quickly blocked the new restrictions, preventing the order from taking effect nationwide. The Trump administration, undeterred, appealed these decisions, culminating in the Supreme Court case now known as Trump v. Washington. As the Arkansas Advocate noted, the justices agreed on December 5, 2025, to review the controversy, setting the stage for a historic showdown over the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.
At the heart of the debate is the first sentence of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Both supporters and opponents of Trump’s order agree that the key legal question is what it means to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. But their interpretations diverge sharply.
Those who argue for automatic birthright citizenship point to the post-Civil War amendments, which sought to enshrine equality and inclusion as constitutional values. Advocates say the 14th Amendment was designed to be broad, extending citizenship to all born in the nation’s borders—except for a few narrow exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats or invading armies. They cite the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the justices recognized the citizenship of an American-born child of noncitizen parents, as precedent for their view. According to The Conversation, this tradition of birthright citizenship has been the effective rule since America’s founding, with only rare exceptions.
Supporters of the new order, however, see things differently. They argue that citizenship in a democracy is not just a matter of geography but of mutual consent and allegiance. Drawing on the Supreme Court’s 1884 decision in Elk v. Wilkins, they contend that “no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” In their view, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” was intended as a limitation, allowing Congress and the American people to decide who is admitted as a member of the national community. As the Arkansas Advocate explains, this perspective holds that immigrants living in the U.S. illegally have not accepted the nation’s sovereignty, and the government, in turn, has not fully accepted them as residents under its protection.
The stakes are enormous. According to KFOX14/CBS4, the outcome could directly impact the estimated 2.1 million unauthorized immigrants residing in Texas alone, not to mention millions more across the country. If the Supreme Court upholds Trump’s order, it would overturn more than 125 years of unrestricted birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, as MENAFN reports.
The legal and political battle lines are sharply drawn. On one side, local Republican officials like Michael Aboud, chairman of the El Paso Republican Party, have voiced strong support for the change. “They’re going to look at the policies that they’ve been using in order to give citizenship to people who don’t necessarily earn it,” Aboud told KFOX14/CBS4. He emphasized the importance of respecting U.S. laws and processes: “But we want them to respect our country, follow our laws, come here with respect, come through the checkpoints so that we know you’re here. Be a good person. Become a good citizen.”
On the other side, Democrats and immigrant advocates warn of the dangers of unraveling decades of settled law. U.S. Representative Veronica Escobar, a Democrat from El Paso, insisted, “It should be a very easy answer. There are decades and decades of established law around this citizenship question.” Expressing concern about the current Supreme Court’s willingness to uphold constitutional norms, Escobar added, “But I have to tell you, I am always concerned with this Supreme Court that has been absolutely unwilling to uphold the law or the Constitution when it comes to Donald Trump.”
The Supreme Court itself is deeply divided. With a 6-3 conservative majority, the justices are expected to split along both ideological and methodological lines. The Arkansas Advocate predicts that the three Democratic-appointed justices—Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor—will almost certainly side against the Trump administration. The six Republican-appointed justices, however, are not unified on the question. The case pits “originalists,” who interpret the Constitution based on its meaning at the time it was adopted, against proponents of a “living Constitution,” who emphasize the evolution of American values.
For originalists like Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, the question hinges on whether the 14th Amendment’s drafters intended to grant citizenship so broadly. Some may argue that the amendment’s small set of exceptions—children of diplomats, invading armies, and (historically) Native Americans—should be expanded to exclude children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors. Others may be swayed by the long-standing precedent of Wong Kim Ark and the tradition of inclusivity.
Ultimately, the outcome may depend on whether two of the conservative justices join the liberal bloc to form a majority upholding universal birthright citizenship. If five of the six conservatives side with Trump, the executive order will stand, fundamentally altering the landscape of American citizenship.
The decision is expected before July 4, 2026—the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. As the nation prepares to celebrate its founding, the Supreme Court’s ruling will determine whether the promise of equality and inclusion enshrined in the 14th Amendment continues to define who is an American, or whether citizenship becomes a matter of consent and exclusion, as some now argue.
All eyes are on the Court as it prepares to answer a question that strikes at the heart of the American experiment: Who belongs, and who decides?
