The Supreme Court is now evaluating Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship as he argues the 14th Amendment was never meant to benefit children of illegal immigrants.

At a Glance

• Trump claims birthright citizenship was originally intended only for descendants of slaves, not illegal immigrants or “birth tourists”
• Justice Kagan criticized U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer over the executive order’s failure in federal courts, including those with Trump-appointed judges
• The case will determine if lower courts can permanently block presidential executive actions through universal injunctions
• Trump argues the U.S. is the only country with such a citizenship policy, making America look like “suckers”

Trump’s Constitutional Challenge

Former President Donald Trump has ignited a constitutional debate by challenging the long-standing interpretation of birthright citizenship in America. At the center of this controversy is the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Trump contends this amendment was specifically crafted to protect the children of former slaves, not to provide automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants or visitors.

In a recent statement on Truth Social, Trump expressed frustration with the current interpretation, claiming the United States is essentially the only country granting citizenship to anyone born within its borders regardless of their parents’ legal status. He specifically criticized what he calls “birth tourism,” where foreigners allegedly come to America solely to give birth, securing U.S. citizenship for their children. This practice, according to Trump, contributes to America’s immigration dysfunction and makes the country look like “suckers.”

Before the Trump presidency, there was broad consensus that the 14th Amendment established birthright citizenship for children born in the United States.

By Abbie VanSickle
Reporting from Washington

May 14, 2025 Updated 2:59 p.m. ET

Shortly after the Supreme Court announced…

— Paul A. Langan (@paul_durhamlang) May 14, 2025

The Legal Battle Unfolds

The current Supreme Court case stems from Trump’s previous attempts to end birthright citizenship through executive order during his administration. His directive sought to reinterpret the 19th-century amendment in a way that would exclude children of illegal immigrants from automatic citizenship. However, this executive action faced immediate legal challenges and was subsequently blocked by multiple federal courts, including those with judges appointed by Trump himself.

Justice Elena Kagan notably questioned U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer during arguments, highlighting the fact that the birthright citizenship executive order failed to gain traction even in courts with Trump-appointed judges. This scrutiny underscores the complex constitutional questions at stake that transcend partisan appointments. Appeals from the Trump administration ultimately proved unsuccessful at lower levels, prompting the Supreme Court to take up the case to resolve the matter definitively.

Birthright Citizenship Reaches the Supreme Court

Does the 14th Amendment cover illegal aliens, and are national injunctions abused?

Two huge debates collide at the Supreme Court on Thursday, and which direction the arguments will ricochet is hard to predict. First question:… pic.twitter.com/T678d0oawE

— Giacomo Jacques BEHAR (@BeharGiacomo) May 14, 2025

Broader Implications for Presidential Power

Beyond the specific question of birthright citizenship, this case has evolved into a significant test of presidential authority and judicial power. The Supreme Court will determine whether lower courts can permanently block a president’s executive actions through universal injunctions. This ruling could have far-reaching consequences for how future presidents implement their policy agendas and how the judicial branch serves as a check on executive power.

For conservatives concerned about immigration reform, the case represents a potential watershed moment. Trump has consistently argued that the current interpretation of birthright citizenship creates incentives for illegal immigration and places unnecessary burdens on American resources and infrastructure. His supporters view this challenge as an essential step toward creating a more controlled and merit-based immigration system that prioritizes America’s national interests over what they consider outdated interpretations of constitutional amendments.

Awaiting the Court’s Decision

The timeline for the Supreme Court’s final ruling remains uncertain. Possibilities range from an immediate emergency ruling to a decision that could take weeks or months to finalize. Whatever the outcome, the ruling will significantly impact American immigration policy and potentially reshape how citizenship is determined for generations to come. For many conservative Americans, this case represents a long-overdue examination of constitutional interpretation in the context of modern immigration challenges.

As this legal battle continues, it highlights the ongoing tension between traditional interpretations of the Constitution and the practical realities of managing immigration in the 21st century. The Supreme Court’s decision will not only address the specific question of birthright citizenship but also potentially redefine the relationship between executive authority and judicial oversight in American governance.

​