Supreme Court hears arguments in Trump birthright citizenship challenge

Dave Goldiner, New York Daily News on May 15, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

The Supreme Court Thursday heard arguments on President Donald Trump’s landmark effort to end birthright citizenship, which has been considered settled law for more than 150 years after being enshrined in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

A majority of judges on the conservative-dominated court sounded skeptical about Trump’s effort to overturn the longstanding principle that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, regardless of how their mother or parents got here.

“On the merits, you are wrong,” Justice Elena Kagain told Solicitor General D. John Sauer. “The (order) is unlawful.”

But the justices seemed more receptive to the White House’s related objection to nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges that have blocked many of his executive orders.

The Supremes did not immediately issue any order and are expected to rule before the end of their current term by July 1.

Trump issued an executive order soon after taking office in January that barred government officials from recognizing the children of undocumented immigrants as U.S. citizens, effectively ending birthright citizenship

Advocates for immigrants sued to block the policy and have quickly won injunctions from several federal district court judges.

Trump’s Department of Justice has appealed those rulings, claiming that the 14th Amendment was only intended to apply to the children of recently freed slaves.

“Birthright citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the “SUCKERS” that we are!” Trump wrote on his social media site.

Birthright citizenship was enacted in the post-Civil War 14th Amendment and has been upheld by the Supreme Court several times since.

It says anyone “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,” wording that would appear to unequivocally include children of undocumented immigrants born on U.S. soil.

The White House also wants the Supreme Court to stop judges from issuing what it derides as “universal injunctions,” which have temporarily blocked many of Trump’s executive orders on a range of issues.

Trump says no one judge should be allowed to block a policy nationwide.

But proponents say they should have the power to protect citizens against overreach from the president or other authorities.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said such a ruling would “turn our justice system into a ‘catch me if you can’ regime” where only individual people who sue can win the benefits of a favorable judgment.

“I don’t understand how that’s remotely consistent with the rule of law,” Jackson said.

Birthright citizenship is among several issues the administration has asked the court to deal with on an emergency basis, after lower courts acted to slow Trump’s agenda.

The justices are considering the administration’s pleas to end protective status from about 850,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, which could result in their deportation.

Judges also blocked Trump’s order banning transgender people from serving in the military, although the Supreme Court ruled that policy could be implemented while the cases wind their way through the courts.