Birthright citizenship explained — what the Supreme Court could change about how America defines who is a citizen at birth has become one of the most consequential legal questions of this generation. A single executive order signed on the first day of Donald Trump’s second term set off a wave of lawsuits, a landmark Supreme Court ruling, and a high-stakes case that will likely reshape American constitutional law by the summer of 2026.
Here is everything you need to know about what is happening, why it matters, and what could come next.
💡 Want to understand your rights before the ruling drops? Bookmark this page and stay informed.
What Is Birthright Citizenship and Where Does It Come From?
Birthright citizenship is the legal principle that any person born on United States soil is automatically a U.S. citizen — regardless of the immigration status of their parents. This right has been recognized and upheld for more than 150 years and is rooted directly in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War.
The relevant text is found in the very first sentence of Section 1, known as the Citizenship Clause: all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. That phrase — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — is now at the center of the most significant citizenship battle in modern American history.
The Supreme Court addressed birthright citizenship as far back as 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, ruling that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrant parents was indeed a citizen. That precedent has stood unchallenged for over a century. Until now.
Trump’s Executive Order and What It Would Do
On January 20, 2025 — his first day back in office — President Donald Trump signed Executive Order No. 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order targets two categories of children born in the United States. First, children whose mothers are in the country without lawful status. Second, children whose mothers are here legally but only on a temporary visa — such as student visas, work visas like H-1B or TN, or tourist visas — and whose fathers are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.
Under the order, those children would no longer receive automatic citizenship at birth. To be granted citizenship, a child would need at least one parent who is either a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident. A U.S. birth certificate alone would no longer serve as proof of citizenship.
The order was set to take effect on February 19, 2025. It never did. Within days of being signed, it was blocked in federal courts across the country.
The Courts Push Back
Federal judges in Washington State, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire all issued injunctions blocking the executive order from taking effect. Every court that examined the order’s merits reached the same conclusion: it likely violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act.
A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit held that the executive order was invalid because it contradicted the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s grant of citizenship to all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Despite those losses, the Trump administration pushed back hard, arguing that the lower courts had overstepped by issuing what are called “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions — court orders that block a federal policy from being applied to anyone in the country, not just the people who filed the lawsuit.
What the Supreme Court Already Decided — and What It Did Not
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. The ruling addressed whether federal district courts have the authority to issue universal injunctions. The Court held that they do not, finding that such broad injunctions exceed the equitable authority of lower courts.
Critically, the Court did not rule on whether Trump’s executive order is constitutional. As of July 1, 2025, nothing changed about birthright citizenship. A child born in the United States is still a U.S. citizen regardless of the immigration status of their parents.
The CASA ruling was significant, however, because it limited the tools available to challengers trying to block the executive order on a nationwide basis. With universal injunctions off the table, legal advocates shifted strategy toward class-action lawsuits, which allow a smaller group of plaintiffs to represent a broader class of people affected by the same policy.
Barbara v. Trump: The Case That Will Decide Everything
Following the CASA decision, a federal district judge in New Hampshire certified a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of babies born on or after February 20, 2025, who would be denied citizenship under the executive order if it takes effect. That case is called Barbara v. Trump, and it is now the vehicle through which the Supreme Court will finally address the constitutional question directly.
On December 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the legality of the Administration’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order. The Court accepted the Barbara case for its 2025–2026 term.
Oral arguments are expected to take place in the spring of 2026, with a definitive ruling expected by the end of June or early July 2026. That ruling will likely determine the future of birthright citizenship in the United States for generations.
What the Court Will Actually Decide
When the justices hear arguments in Barbara v. Trump, the core question before them will be whether the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment applies to children born to parents without lawful immigration status or on temporary visas.
The Trump administration argues that the amendment was written specifically to grant citizenship to newly freed enslaved people after the Civil War, not to extend automatic citizenship to the children of people who are in the country temporarily or without authorization. The government contends that full “political jurisdiction” requires more than mere physical presence on U.S. soil.
Opponents of the order argue that the amendment’s text and historical context make clear that any child born in the United States — with very limited exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats — is a citizen, full stop. They point to the 1898 Wong Kim Ark precedent as settled law that has guided U.S. policy for over a century.
There is also a procedural dimension. By accepting the Justice Department’s request to review Barbara, the Court left open the possibility that it may focus on the requirements for class-action lawsuits that block government policies nationwide, rather than reaching the constitutional question directly. Legal experts, however, expect the Court to rule on the constitutional merits.
What Happens If the Order Is Upheld?
If the Supreme Court upholds Executive Order 14160, the practical consequences would be sweeping. A U.S. birth certificate alone would no longer suffice as proof of citizenship. Parents would need to provide documentation of the mother’s lawful status or the father’s citizen or permanent resident status.
Children born to parents on H-1B work visas, F-1 student visas, TN visas, and other temporary statuses would not automatically become citizens. Parents in those situations would need to apply for citizenship on their child’s behalf through separate legal processes, with no guarantee of success.
The order also affects children born through assisted reproductive technologies, as the administration’s definition of mother and father is limited to immediate biological parents.
Hundreds of thousands of children are born in the United States each year to parents in temporary immigration status or without lawful status. A ruling upholding the order would represent the most dramatic change to American citizenship law since the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.
What Happens If the Order Is Struck Down?
If the Court strikes down the executive order, birthright citizenship continues exactly as it has for more than 150 years. Every child born on U.S. soil — with the narrow exception of children of foreign diplomats — would remain a citizen from birth, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The ruling would also send a clear signal that the Citizenship Clause cannot be altered by executive action alone and would require a constitutional amendment to change.
Where Things Stand Right Now
As of February 2026, the executive order remains blocked from taking effect. The government is currently required to recognize the U.S. citizenship of all babies born in the United States. The class-action injunction issued in the Barbara case continues to protect children born after February 19, 2025.
The Supreme Court’s final word on birthright citizenship is expected before summer 2026. Whatever the Court decides, it will redefine what it means to be born in America.
📌 Share this article with someone who needs to understand what’s at stake before the Supreme Court rules.
The entire nation is watching as the Supreme Court prepares to issue a ruling that could permanently rewrite the rules of American citizenship — share your thoughts below and let us know how you think this should be decided.
