Supreme Court to Hear Case on Birthright Citizenship Interpretation

In an unusual step, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear oral arguments in May regarding the scope of the 14th Amendment and its connection to birthright citizenship. The decision comes after an emergency appeal was filed in response to a recent executive order concerning the citizenship status of children born in the United States to non-legal residents.

On his first day in office this January, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reinterpreting the 14th Amendment. The order proposed that automatic citizenship should only be granted to children born on U.S. soil to parents who are legally subject to U.S. jurisdiction—meaning, in effect, that children born to undocumented immigrants or individuals in the country temporarily would not qualify for automatic citizenship.

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 following the Civil War, was originally designed to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved individuals and their descendants. It reads, in part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Over the years, it has been widely interpreted to mean that nearly all individuals born within the U.S. are automatically granted citizenship, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

However, the exact meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” has never been definitively settled by the Supreme Court. The closest relevant case came in 1898, when the Court ruled that children born to legal immigrants were U.S. citizens. But no ruling has directly addressed the citizenship status of children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors.

Following the January executive order, several legal challenges were filed across the country, with lawsuits emerging in federal courts in states such as Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. Lower courts promptly blocked the enforcement of the order, with appeals courts in several regions—including San Francisco, Boston, and Richmond—upholding those blocks.

In response, the Department of Justice filed emergency appeals to the Supreme Court in March, requesting that the order be allowed to take effect in certain states while litigation continued. On Thursday, the Supreme Court announced it would take up the case and scheduled oral arguments for May 15. Such a late hearing in the Court’s term, which ends in June, is relatively uncommon.

Legal scholars and analysts have expressed interest in the case, noting its potential to significantly impact long-standing interpretations of the Constitution. At the heart of the case is whether the children of individuals who are in the U.S. without legal status are entitled to citizenship under the Constitution.

During the presidential campaign and again after signing the executive order, President Trump expressed concerns that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment has been too broad. He has cited historical interpretations suggesting that individuals who are citizens of another country—or those visiting the U.S. temporarily—may not fall under the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in the amendment’s original context.

Critics of the executive order argue that the long-standing principle of jus soli—citizenship by place of birth—is fundamental to American legal tradition. Supporters contend that the matter deserves closer constitutional review, especially given the amendment’s historical background and its original intent during the Reconstruction era.

In his public remarks following the Supreme Court’s announcement, President Trump said he was pleased that the case would be reviewed. He reiterated his belief that the amendment was created specifically to address the aftermath of slavery and questioned whether it should apply to children born under different circumstances today.

Legal experts expect the administration to argue that undocumented immigrants are primarily under the jurisdiction of their countries of origin, not the United States, and thus do not pass U.S. citizenship on to their children under the 14th Amendment. Opponents will likely counter that anyone physically present in the country and subject to its laws falls under its jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision could clarify a long-debated constitutional issue. Regardless of the outcome, it will have lasting implications for how citizenship is granted in the United States and may shape future immigration policy and law.