Donald Trump signed an executive order, ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants and people with temporary visas on US territory.
On May 15, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a pivotal case that could reshape not only the future of immigration law but also how the courts enforce constitutional protections. At the center of the debate is President Donald Trump’s executive order, signed on his first day back in office, which seeks to restrict birthright citizenship.
Trump’s directive would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (green card holder). If enforced, the policy could impact over 150,000 newborns each year, effectively rendering them stateless and ineligible for critical rights and services.
Critics argue the order is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment, which has long guaranteed citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil. That interpretation stems from the landmark 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed the citizenship rights of U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents. Trump’s legal team claims that ruling was narrower than widely understood.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t hold back, warning that the directive could leave thousands of babies without legal status. “It violates multiple Supreme Court precedents,” she said, raising the alarm about statelessness and systemic injustice.
What happens next?
Several justices from both ideological wings expressed hesitation about ruling without fully addressing the legal merits of the executive order. Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether the government’s proposed timeline for review was realistic, asking, “Are you really going to answer Justice Kagan by saying there’s no way to do this expeditiously?”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised a practical concern: What are hospitals and states supposed to do the day after the order takes effect?
If the Court chooses not to rule broadly on the constitutionality of Trump’s order and instead narrows the injunctions, the policy could still be implemented in states that did not join the lawsuit—creating a legal patchwork across the country.
Jurist's Journal 
Leave a comment