The Trump administration is seeking to limit lower court national injunctions regarding birthright citizenship by appealing to the Supreme Court, a move that could fundamentally reshape a cornerstone of American policy.
In a filing on March 13, 2025, the Department of Justice requested that the Supreme Court bar lower courts from blocking President Trump’s executive order, which aims to restrict birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders.
This unprecedented legal strategy shifts responsibility from the Supreme Court directly ruling on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship to a broader limitation of judicial power regarding nationwide injunctions. The request comes after three federal judges issued orders to halt the executive order, deeming it unconstitutional. Federal Judge John Coughenour described the executive order as “blatantly unconstitutional.”
The administration contends that universal injunctions, which prevent federal policies from being enforced across the nation, amount to judicial overreach. “Universal injunctions compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions,” stated Justice Department attorney Sarah Harris. She emphasized the growing concern over these injunctions, characterizing their frequency as reaching “epidemic proportions.”
Many legal experts believe that limiting the injunctions could effectively allow Trump’s policies to be enforced in states where lawsuits have not yet been filed. This patchwork enforcement could create uncertainty and provoke significant legal disputes, especially in states with large undocumented populations. In Florida alone, estimates suggest that over half a million residents are undocumented, with roughly 280,000 children living with at least one undocumented relative. Immigration attorney Brian Green noted concerns about how such approaches could leave families in limbo, unable to secure proof of citizenship for their children potentially for years.
The underlying issue involves the principle of birthright citizenship, established by the landmark Supreme Court case U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark in 1898, which enshrined the concept under the 14th Amendment. The Trump administration challenges this long-held interpretation, asserting that children born to undocumented immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore should not receive citizenship automatically.
About two dozen states have joined legal challenges against Trump’s executive order. Interestingly, South Carolina’s attorney general, Alan Wilson, has publicly supported the executive order, claiming that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment misrepresents its original context. “That amendment was rightfully designed to bestow citizenship on emancipated slaves… it has been misinterpreted over the last 160 years,” Wilson argued. His state is one of 18 that have filed a Supreme Court brief in favor of the administration’s position.
The Supreme Court has called for responses from the states and groups contesting the executive order. Notably, five of the Supreme Court's conservative justices have previously raised concerns about the implications of nationwide injunctions but have yet to make a definitive ruling on the matter.
Public opinion on the topic remains divided. A recent Pew survey found that 56% of respondents oppose Trump’s executive order focused on limiting birthright citizenship, while only 43% support it. Despite a climate of shifting views on border security and immigration, the legal interpretations surrounding birthright citizenship remain robust among major legal scholars in the U.S.
What sets this legal battle apart is its potential to reshape the dynamics of power between the executive and judicial branches. If the Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration, the ramifications could extend beyond immigration, influencing a variety of policy areas, including healthcare and environmental regulations.
Haiyun Damon-Feng, an assistant professor at Cardozo School of Law, remarked on the historic significance of the 14th Amendment and the implications of the current lawsuit, stating, “The history of the 14th amendment taken in conjunction with the long-standing and undisturbed ruling in 1898 are very clear.”
As the legal wrangling continues, families across the country are left grappling with the uncertainty that hangs in the balance—the ability to secure citizenship for their children stemming from longstanding American practices is at stake. The outcome of this Supreme Court case could usher in a new era of interpretation regarding birthright citizenship and the executive's reach in legal matters.
