The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship is constitutionally valid.
Trump signed the executive order shortly after taking office. Since then, it has met with a barrage of legal challenges. Now, the matter will be decided once and for all, according to NBC News.
Teeing up a blockbuster ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide the lawfulness of President Donald Trump’s contentious plan to roll back automatic birthright citizenship for nearly anyone born in the United States.
The eventual ruling in a case from New Hampshire, expected by the end of June, will likely determine conclusively whether Trump’s ambitious proposal can move forward.
The case sets up a major clash between a president whose aggressive use of executive power has been a defining characteristic of his second term and a court with a 6-3 conservative majority that has so far mostly avoided direct clashes with the White House.
Birthright citizenship has long been understood to be required under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
The language was included in the constitutional amendment enacted after the Civil War to ensure that Black former slaves and their children were recognized as citizens.
Legal scholars of all ideological stripes have generally assumed the phrase to be self-explanatory, with the only exceptions being people born to foreign diplomats, invading hostile forces and members of some Native American tribes.
The executive order narrows who is allowed to become a U.S. citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment. It mandates that children born on American soil on or after February 19, 2025, are not automatically citizens if neither of their parents is a citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The objective is to prevent the children of illegal immigrants and legal temporary visitors from being born as American citizens. The Trump administration contends that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of” in the 14th Amendment does not apply to these children, despite the longstanding interpretation that it does.
Supporters affirm that the 14th Amendment was never meant to apply to children of those who entered the country illegally or temporarily. They point out that the order will discourage “birth tourism,” in which migrants come to the United States to have children.
Critics argue that the 14th Amendment was meant to apply to anyone born on American soil. Civil rights groups, immigration advocates, and legal scholars insist that president does not possess the authority to unilaterally override laws passed by Congress.
Shortly after Trump issued the order, federal district judges issued preliminary injunctions blocking the enforcement of the order. A New Hampshire judge in July expanded the case into a class action and issued a nationwide injunction.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld the national injunction, arguing that it conflicts with the 14th Amendment. The First Circuit issued a similar ruling.