President Donald Trump is taking his fight against automatic birthright citizenship straight to the highest court in the land.
The Daily Wire reported that the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on an executive order, signed on his first day back in office in January, which aims to restrict citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, a move that has ignited fierce legal battles over the 14th Amendment.
This bold policy directs federal agencies to deny citizenship recognition to children born on American soil unless at least one parent holds U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent resident status.
It’s a direct challenge to long-standing constitutional interpretations, and the administration argues that the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, doesn’t cover children of parents in the country without proper authorization or on temporary legal status, like student or work visas.
Almost immediately, multiple lower courts stepped in, slamming the brakes on Trump’s order by ruling it unconstitutional. These courts pointed to the 14th Amendment’s clear language that grants citizenship to all persons born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction.
Among the challengers, the state of Washington, joined by three other states, took a stand, while a separate group of individuals in New Hampshire filed their own lawsuit.
In July, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the states, delivering a significant blow to the administration’s plans.
Over in Concord, New Hampshire, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante allowed the plaintiffs to proceed as a class, effectively enabling a nationwide block of the executive order. That’s a big win for opponents, but the fight is far from over.
On Friday, the Justice Department fired back with two appeals to the Supreme Court, urging the justices to take up the case in their new term starting October 6. T
hey’re specifically asking the court to tackle the New Hampshire dispute before a Boston-based federal appeals court can weigh in. It’s a classic move by an administration that’s no stranger to seeking emergency intervention from the high court.
The Justice Department didn’t mince words in its filings, claiming the lower court rulings “confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.” Well, that’s one way to frame it, but let’s be real—redefining a constitutional right isn’t exactly a small potatoes issue, and it’s no surprise this has sparked a firestorm.
They also argued that the current policy “operates as a powerful incentive for illegal migration” and fuels what they call modern “birth tourism,” where individuals come to the U.S. just to have a child here. It’s a provocative point, though critics would counter that punishing children for their parents’ choices hardly seems like the American way.
With a 6-3 conservative majority, the Supreme Court has often leaned in favor of Trump’s policies since his return to office, especially on migration and deportation issues.
Just on Friday, the court allowed the administration to withhold about $4 billion in congressionally authorized foreign aid for the current fiscal year—a reminder of their willingness to back executive action.
In June, the court also issued a landmark ruling limiting federal judges’ ability to issue sweeping injunctions against presidential policies, though it left wiggle room for states and class action lawsuits to seek broad relief. This could play a pivotal role in how the justices approach Trump’s citizenship order. Will they see it as an overreach or a necessary correction?
Opponents aren’t backing down either, with Cody Wofsy, an attorney for the New Hampshire plaintiffs, telling Reuters, “This executive order is illegal – full stop – and no amount of maneuvering from the administration is going to change that.” That’s a confident jab, but with the Supreme Court’s recent track record, such certainty might be a tad premature.
The core issue here is whether the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship can be narrowed by executive fiat, a question that strikes at the heart of American identity. Trump’s team insists this is about securing borders and discouraging unauthorized migration, but detractors see it as a cruel rewrite of a bedrock principle.
Since returning to the office, the administration has repeatedly turned to the Supreme Court for quick rulings when lower courts block its agenda. Given the court’s pattern of siding with Trump in nearly every reviewed case, the odds might just tilt in their favor again.
