Supreme Court Petitioned By Trump Admin Over Birthright Citizenship

Supreme Court building with steps and columns.

President Trump petitions the Supreme Court to lift nationwide injunctions blocking his executive order on birthright citizenship, setting the stage for a historic constitutional showdown over the 14th Amendment.

Key Insights

President Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office attempting to end automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders.
Multiple federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions blocking the order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argues the 14th Amendment doesn’t grant citizenship to everyone born on U.S. soil and that nationwide injunctions exceed constitutional limits.
The administration’s petition asks the Supreme Court to allow partial implementation of the order while litigation proceeds.
This marks the first time a legal battle over birthright citizenship has reached the Supreme Court, potentially setting a major precedent.

Trump Administration Challenges Judicial Blockade

The Trump administration has formally asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the ongoing legal battle over birthright citizenship, marking a significant escalation in President Trump’s immigration agenda. After signing an executive order on January 20, 2025, that would end automatic citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders, the administration faced immediate legal challenges. Court injunctions from judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state have completely blocked implementation of the order, prompting the Justice Department to seek relief from the nation’s highest court.

Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris filed the appeal, arguing that the nationwide injunctions exceed judicial authority and should be limited only to parties directly involved in the cases. The administration characterizes its request as “modest,” seeking only to restrict the scope of preliminary injunctions while the substantive constitutional issues work their way through the courts. This legal maneuver represents a critical test for both immigration policy and the growing debate over nationwide injunctions issued by individual district judges.

Constitutional Showdown Over the 14th Amendment

At the heart of this legal dispute is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” For over 150 years, this has been understood to grant automatic citizenship to virtually all children born on American soil. President Trump’s executive order seeks to reinterpret this language by arguing that children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the full constitutional sense.

“These cases – which involve challenges to the President’s January 20, 2025 Executive Order concerning birthright citizenship – raise important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border,” argued Sarah Harris in court filings.

Multiple federal judges have forcefully rejected this interpretation. Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland stated that “no court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation. This court will not be the first.” Similarly, Judge John Coughenour labeled the order “blatantly unconstitutional” when extending a temporary ban on its enforcement. The United States is among approximately 30 countries worldwide that currently apply birthright citizenship, a practice the Trump administration argues encourages illegal immigration through “birth tourism” and anchor babies.

Nationwide Injunctions Under Scrutiny

Beyond the birthright citizenship debate, the administration’s appeal focuses heavily on challenging the authority of individual district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The Department of Justice argues that such sweeping orders from single judges improperly constrain executive authority. This issue has attracted increasing attention, with the frequency of nationwide injunctions rising dramatically – 15 were issued in February alone, compared to just 14 during the first three years of President Biden’s term.

“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” Harris wrote in the government’s filing.

The emergency appeal notes that five conservative Supreme Court justices have previously expressed concerns about nationwide injunctions. However, Judge Danielle Forrest countered this urgency argument, stating, “It is routine for both executive and legislative policies to be challenged in court, particularly where a new policy is a significant shift from prior understanding and practice.” The Supreme Court has not previously issued a definitive ruling on nationwide injunctions, making this case potentially consequential beyond immigration policy.

Implications for Trump’s Immigration Agenda

The birthright citizenship order represents a central component of President Trump’s broader immigration strategy. The Department of Justice described it as an “integral part of President Trump’s broader effort to repair the United States’ immigration system, and to address the ongoing crisis at the southern border.” This legal challenge comes amid a flurry of executive actions in Trump’s second term, including changes to federal employment, aid programs, transgender rights, and immigration enforcement.

The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to intervene will have immediate practical consequences. If the Court allows the order to take partial effect, children born after February 19 to parents in the U.S. illegally would be denied automatic citizenship, and federal agencies would be prevented from recognizing such citizenship. Over 22 states and numerous immigrant rights groups have sued to block the order, arguing it represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional reinterpretation of foundational citizenship principles that have governed American law since the Reconstruction era.