Related Articles
-Editorial
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments concerning court orders temporarily blocking an executive order signed by President Donald Trump, which looks to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to certain non-citizen parents.
The executive order, issued on Trump’s first day of his second term, would deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders, such as H-1B workers. The measure has sparked multiple legal challenges, with civil rights organizations arguing it violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Legal and immigration experts warn that the policy, if implemented, could create a stateless population of millions over the coming decades. A study from the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates that the executive order could affect up to 255,000 children born yearly, eventually impacting as many as 2.7 million by 2045. Many of these children would lack legal status in any country, raising concerns about access to healthcare, education, and other essential rights.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” For over 125 years, courts have interpreted this to include all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Trump’s executive order challenges that long-standing interpretation, arguing that children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the constitutional sense.
Martin Kim, Director of Immigration Advocacy at Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, described the executive order as “rooted in a fringe legal theory” and warned that it would undermine the principle of equal citizenship. “The president cannot change the Constitution by executive order,” Kim said during a recent forum. “This weakens citizenship for everyone.”
While the Supreme Court’s deliberations this week focused on the scope of nationwide injunctions—rather than the constitutional merits of the policy—the outcome could have far-reaching consequences. Kim and others emphasized the danger of allowing a single executive action to redefine who qualifies for American citizenship.
Advocacy organizations, including LatinoJustice PRLDEF, have also filed lawsuits against the policy, asserting that it targets immigrant communities, particularly Latinos. “This is a racially motivated attack on immigrant families,” said Cesar Ruiz, Associate Counsel at LatinoJustice, during a press conference. “Birthright citizenship is a constitutional guarantee. Stripping it away would erode fundamental rights and create a permanent underclass.”
Julia Gelatt, Associate Director of MPI’s U.S. Immigration Policy Program, presented modeling that projects a long-term increase in the undocumented population if birthright citizenship is curtailed. According to MPI, the population could grow by as much as 5.4 million over the next 50 years, including multigenerational impacts as children and grandchildren of non-citizens are denied legal status.
“These children would grow up without access to public benefits, without legal work authorization, and without the protections afforded to other citizens,” Gelatt explained. “Rescinding birthright citizenship threatens immigrant integration and the long-term stability of American society.”
Legal scholars also expressed concern that the order could open the door to retroactive efforts to strip individuals of citizenship. Robert S. Chang, Executive Director of the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, warned that if upheld, the policy could lead to denials of passport renewals and public benefits for those unable to document their parents’ lawful immigration status at the time of their birth.
Chang cited United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), a Supreme Court ruling affirming the citizenship of a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrant parents, as a key precedent. “Overturning that would contradict over a century of legal understanding,” he said.
Amicus briefs submitted by several civil rights groups argue that the executive order is not only unconstitutional but could destabilize the legal framework surrounding American citizenship.
While proponents of the policy cite concerns about so-called “birth tourism” and immigration enforcement, critics argue those issues are too limited in scale to justify a fundamental shift in constitutional rights. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that approximately 9,000 births annually involve non-resident mothers, a small fraction of total U.S. births.
As the legal battle continues, advocates stress that the stakes go beyond immigration. “This is not just a legal fight—it’s a fight over the meaning of citizenship in a democratic society,” said Chang. “If this precedent stand, the door opens to further erosion of constitutional protections.”