The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on May 15 regarding the federal government’s request to implement President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, a long-standing principle that has granted citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil since the post-Civil War era.
This order, which was issued shortly after Trump took office in January, seeks to bar citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. However, the Court has already maintained stays ordered by three federal judges that prevent the government from enforcing this executive order until a decision is made.
The legal foundation of birthright citizenship lies within the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that “[a]ll 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.” This amendment was originally passed to rectify the Supreme Court’s 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied African Americans citizenship.
In 1898, the Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship in the case of Wong Kim Ark, ruling that children born in the U.S. to resident aliens are also citizens. Justice Horace Gray stated that the 14th Amendment affirms the rule of citizenship by birth within the territory.
Throughout his campaign for re-election, Trump reiterated his intention to end birthright citizenship. Following his inauguration, he issued an executive order declaring that not all individuals born in the U.S. would automatically qualify for citizenship.
The executive order drew immediate legal challenges across the country. In a notable case in Seattle, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour blocked the government’s enforcement of the order, labeling birthright citizenship a fundamental constitutional right. The federal appeals court in San Francisco later rejected Trump’s request to limit Coughenour’s ruling to just the individual plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit.
In Maryland, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman also temporarily halted the order’s implementation. She notably emphasized that no court has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation of birthright citizenship. Similarly, a federal appeals court in Richmond declined to pause Boardman’s ruling, although one judge dissented, labeling the government’s request as “modest.”
Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin responded to a request from a coalition of 18 states, the District of Columbia, and San Francisco to suspend Trump’s order nationwide. Sorokin highlighted that allowing enforcement in some states while forbidding it in others would fail to address the issue adequately, as it could potentially allow expectant mothers to travel across state lines to give birth.
Resorting to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration appealed on March 13, with then-Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris framing the request as “modest.” The government sought a stay on the orders from the three district judges, aiming to enforce the executive order except against the individual plaintiffs specified in the lawsuits.
Harris contended that issuing nationwide injunctions compromises the Executive Branch’s capacity to carry out its functions. She implored the justices to rein in what she described as a dangerous trend in the reliance on universal injunctions by district courts.
On the other hand, the challengers urged the Supreme Court to maintain the existing orders. Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell argued that being ordered to uphold longstanding constitutional traditions is not an emergency that necessitates a stay. Additionally, a brief prepared by New Jersey and 17 other states, along with D.C. and San Francisco, asserted that the Trump administration had not even attempted to challenge the underlying merits of the district courts’ orders.
Immigrant rights organizations such as CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, which are contesting the executive order in a Maryland lawsuit, denied the administration’s broader claims regarding the excessive issuance of nationwide injunctions. They highlighted that the number of nationwide injunctions must be understood in context, arguing that Trump has issued over 100 Executive Orders during his second term alone.
The Supreme Court’s unsigned order released on Thursday indicated that the justices would postpone consideration of the administration’s request to pause the judges’ orders until after the May 15 oral arguments. The cases will be argued collectively, starting at 10 a.m., with the justices allocating one hour for the proceedings, although the session could extend beyond that.
A decision from the Court is anticipated to follow by late June or early July.
image source from：https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/justices-will-hear-arguments-on-trumps-effort-to-end-birthright-citizenship/
