On May 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. CASA, a pivotal case challenging President Donald Trump’s January 20, 2025, executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship. This order, which aims to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents without legal permanent residency, directly confronts the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which guarantees that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The case has ignited a fierce legal and political debate, with far-reaching implications for constitutional law, immigration policy, and the balance of judicial power.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, has long been interpreted to grant birthright citizenship, or jus soli (“right of soil”), to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. This principle was affirmed in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where the Supreme Court upheld citizenship for a child born to Chinese immigrants. Trump’s executive order, however, argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of undocumented immigrants or temporary residents, a novel interpretation that critics, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor, have called a direct challenge to established precedent.
The administration’s legal team, led by D. John Sauer, contends that the executive branch has the authority to reinterpret this clause through policy, bypassing Congress or a constitutional amendment. They argue that birthright citizenship incentivizes illegal immigration and that the order aligns with national sovereignty. Opponents, including immigrant rights groups and 22 states, counter that the order violates the Constitution’s plain text and undermines a core American value. Three federal judges—both conservative and liberal—issued nationwide injunctions blocking the order, citing its likely unconstitutionality.
A central issue in Trump v. CASA is the use of nationwide injunctions, which allow a single district judge to halt a federal policy across the entire country. The Supreme Court, during arguments, appeared divided but leaned toward limiting this practice. Conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, expressed skepticism about the broad scope of such injunctions, suggesting they disrupt executive authority and create inconsistent policy enforcement. The administration pushed for a ruling to prohibit these injunctions entirely, which could allow the order to take effect in some jurisdictions while legal challenges continue. However, no clear consensus emerged, with justices like Amy Coney Barrett probing the practical impacts of such a shift.
The Court’s apparent openness to lifting the injunctions has raised alarms among immigrant advocates. If the order is partially enforced, it could lead to immediate consequences, such as denying passports or benefits to newborns, and spark a wave of new lawsuits. The ACLU and other groups have already filed challenges, arguing that the policy puts newborns “in harm’s way” by creating a stateless population. Long-term, a decision upholding the order could reshape immigration policy, potentially reducing the U.S. citizen population and altering demographic trends.
Beyond the policy itself, Trump v. CASA tests the judiciary’s role in checking executive power. A ruling against nationwide injunctions could weaken lower courts’ ability to block unconstitutional actions swiftly, tilting the balance toward the executive branch. Conversely, upholding the injunctions would reaffirm judicial oversight but risks accusations of overreach. The case also highlights the Court’s delicate position in a polarized era, as it navigates a contentious issue under intense public scrutiny.
As the nation awaits a decision, the battle over birthright citizenship underscores deeper questions about American identity and constitutional fidelity. Will the Court preserve a 150-year-old guarantee, or pave the way for a redefined citizenship? The outcome will shape not only immigration law but the very meaning of “We the People.”
