Supreme Court to Hear Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Appeal, Avoids Immediate Policy Change

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Thursday it will hear oral arguments on May 15 regarding former President Donald Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship. The case is a historic legal battle with potentially sweeping consequences. However, the Court declined Trump’s request to immediately enforce his plan to end the long-standing right for most U.S.-born individuals with foreign parents.

Trump’s legal team framed the request as a modest effort to limit lower court injunctions. Critics and legal experts see it as an explosive constitutional test. If the Court sides with Trump, it could allow his controversial policy to take effect across most of the country, despite widespread opposition and rulings that label it as unconstitutional.

What’s at Stake

Trump has long made ending birthright citizenship a central campaign promise. On his first day back in the White House, he signed an executive order that aimed to stop the federal government from recognizing citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants.

Lower courts swiftly blocked the order. Federal judges in Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts issued preliminary injunctions that halted its enforcement. Judges across those cases cited constitutional precedent, especially the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen regardless of their parents’ status.

“The question presented was as clear as I’ve ever seen,” said U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle. He called Trump’s order blatantly unconstitutional.

The federal government has argued that the courts overstepped by issuing nationwide injunctions. This broader legal issue is one the Supreme Court has shown interest in, but never fully resolved. The administration's appeal does not just challenge the citizenship rule. It also questions whether lower courts should have the authority to block federal policies nationwide, especially before full trials.

A Technical Ask with Massive Implications

Legal scholars warn that even if the Court does not address the merits of birthright citizenship directly, the outcome could still reshape the legal landscape.

“It would be a stunning development,” said Georgetown Law professor Steve Vladeck, “if the Court resolved this nationwide injunction question in a way that lets a policy deemed unconstitutional take effect across nearly the entire country.”

Some conservatives argue that the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” could exclude children born to undocumented immigrants. Courts have rejected this view for more than a century.

Trump’s focus on procedure may help avoid a direct constitutional confrontation, at least for now. But by agreeing to hear the case, the Supreme Court has opened the door to potentially dramatic changes in immigration law and the powers of federal judges.

Politics and Precedent

Presidents from both parties have voiced concerns about national injunctions. Trump has made the issue a personal battle. He has argued that liberal judges are unfairly halting his agenda. His administration has appealed multiple cases to the Supreme Court in hopes of reducing judicial checks on executive power.

The Court’s decision to hear this case is especially notable. In the past, it has avoided intervening in politically sensitive cases at the emergency stage. It declined to block a Texas abortion ban in 2021, even though it conflicted with Roe v. Wade. That decision allowed the law to stand until Roe was overturned.

With a conservative majority on the bench, the Court now faces a test of how far it is willing to let executive action go, even when lower courts say the law is clear.

As of now, the preliminary injunctions remain in place. Trump’s policy cannot be enforced. But the May 15 hearing could mark a turning point in the nation’s debate over birthright citizenship and set precedent for generations to come.

‍