The upcoming Birthright Citizenship Supreme Court Case could reshape a key constitutional right in the United States. On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments in May on President Donald Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship — a move that has drawn sharp legal criticism and triggered nationwide debate.
Although the court refused to allow immediate implementation of Trump’s plan, its decision to hear the case is both historic and politically significant. The case, scheduled for May 15, could determine whether the government can alter one of the core principles of U.S. citizenship.
Legal Experts Warn of Constitutional Crisis Over Birthright Citizenship Supreme Court Case
Legal scholars and civil rights groups have raised alarms about the Birthright Citizenship Supreme Court Case, warning that the plan could undermine the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born or naturalized in the United States.
Georgetown Law Professor Steve Vladeck explained that Trump’s legal team is using a procedural issue — not the constitutionality of the policy — to push the policy through. “It’s an effort to enforce the birthright citizenship policy across 99% of the country without addressing whether the policy is constitutional,” Vladeck said.
Trump’s executive order, signed on his first day back in the White House, blocks the federal government from issuing or recognizing citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrant parents. This led to several lawsuits, and lower courts issued nationwide injunctions to stop the order’s enforcement.
What’s at Stake in the Birthright Citizenship?
The Birthright Citizenship Supreme Court Case is more than a procedural debate. It challenges over 100 years of legal precedent, starting with the landmark 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that individuals born on U.S. soil are citizens regardless of their parents’ status.
Lower court judges across multiple states have already ruled Trump’s order as “clearly unconstitutional.” For instance, Judge John Coughenour in Seattle, who blocked the order, said, “I don’t recall another case where the constitutional question was so clear.”
Despite Trump’s legal team branding the Supreme Court appeal as a minor procedural issue, the consequences are anything but minor. If the court sides with Trump, the U.S. could see differing citizenship standards in different states — something legal experts say is both legally and morally indefensible.
As of now, Trump has appealed the injunctions in three separate cases to the Supreme Court. The decision, expected later this year, will have far-reaching consequences for immigration, constitutional rights, and the future of citizenship in America.
