The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up one of the most consequential constitutional questions in recent American history: whether President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship stands on firm legal ground. The case, known as Trump v. Barbara, has sparked fierce debate across the country, reigniting arguments over the meaning and reach of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause—a debate that, until recently, most legal scholars considered settled.
On December 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an unsigned order granting certiorari in the case, with no justices dissenting. The court’s decision to hear the case, as reported by The Epoch Times and Slate, followed months of legal wrangling in lower courts, all of which had blocked Trump’s executive order and sided with challengers who argued the order violated the Constitution. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled, but the justices are expected to hear the case early in 2026 and issue a ruling by the end of June.
President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, signed on January 20, 2025—his first day back in office—declared that the 14th Amendment "has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States." The order specifically denies citizenship to individuals born in the U.S. if their mothers were unlawfully present or only temporarily lawfully present, and their fathers were neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents at the time of birth.
The executive order’s language challenges the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which states, "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." For over 120 years, courts have held that this clause grants citizenship to virtually all people born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
The petition in Trump v. Barbara was filed with the Supreme Court on September 26, 2025, after the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted a preliminary injunction blocking the executive order on July 10. The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups brought the class-action lawsuit on behalf of children who might be denied citizenship under the new policy. The district court provisionally certified the plaintiffs as a class, though not their parents.
The lead respondent, known as Barbara, is a Honduran citizen living in New Hampshire with her husband and three children. She has resided in the U.S. since 2024 and has an asylum application pending. Her husband is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. According to court documents, Barbara intends to apply for benefits such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid for her family—benefits that would be available only if her children are recognized as U.S. citizens.
After the district court’s injunction, the federal government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on September 5, 2025. The circuit court had not yet ruled when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Meanwhile, a similar case, Trump v. Washington, saw the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rule on July 23, 2025, that the executive order was "invalid because it contradicts the plain language of the 14th Amendment’s grant of citizenship to ‘all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’" The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington had previously blocked the order, citing "immediate economic and administrative harms" to the states and the risk of losing federal funds if many residents lost their citizenship status.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the federal government, argued in the Supreme Court petition that the order was issued "to restore the [citizenship clause’s] original meaning" as adopted in 1868 after the Civil War. Sauer asserted that the clause was "to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children—not to those of temporary visitors or illegal aliens." He further contended that automatic citizenship "operates as a powerful incentive for illegal migration," raises national security concerns, and has "spawned an industry of modern ‘birth tourism,’ by which foreigners travel to the United States solely for the purpose of giving birth here and obtaining citizenship for their children."
Legal experts and commentators have been quick to weigh in, highlighting the stakes and the unusual nature of the case. On Slate’s Amicus podcast, co-host Mark Joseph Stern described the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case as "a clean vehicle for the justices to decide whether the Constitution does, in fact, grant birthright citizenship to virtually all people born here." He noted that Trump’s order "violates the plain text of the 14th Amendment, a federal statute, and more than 120 years of Supreme Court precedent. But he did it anyway."
Fellow co-host Dahlia Lithwick remarked on how rapidly the legal landscape has shifted: "A year ago, going for the jugular on birthright citizenship was an utterly ludicrous argument, yet a year and change later, we are about to be told by the U.S. Supreme Court that there are sober, meritorious arguments on both sides." Lithwick criticized what she called "an entire apparatus, this infrastructure, on the right devoted to concocting bogus, originalist arguments to align the Supreme Court with the Republican Party platform." Still, she expressed cautious optimism that the Supreme Court would ultimately affirm birthright citizenship, given that "every lower court ruled against the government in this case, and a bunch of different lawsuits had been filed. There were no wins for the Trump administration. The judges did admirable work laying out the historical record, saying, ‘This is a stinker, this is a loser.’"
Supporters of the executive order argue that the 14th Amendment was never meant to confer citizenship on the children of unauthorized immigrants or temporary visitors, pointing to the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as a limiting condition. Critics counter that the Supreme Court long ago settled the issue, most notably in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that children born in the U.S. to foreign nationals are citizens under the Constitution.
The case has also brought attention to the broader political and social implications of changing birthright citizenship. Opponents of the executive order warn that revoking automatic citizenship could create a large population of stateless children and upend established immigration and civil rights law. Proponents, meanwhile, frame the issue as a matter of national sovereignty and the need to address illegal immigration and birth tourism.
As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh in, the nation is bracing for a decision that could reshape the meaning of citizenship in America. The outcome will not only affect the lives of thousands of children and families but could also set a precedent with lasting effects on the country’s legal and political landscape.
Whatever the Court decides, the fact that this issue has reached the highest court in the land is a testament to the shifting boundaries of constitutional debate in the United States. The coming months promise a legal showdown with consequences that will echo far beyond the courtroom.
