Supreme Court to Decide on Birthright Citizenship and Trump’s Firings

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

• Executive Order 14156 aims to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents or temporary visa holders.
• Federal judges in four states have issued preliminary injunctions against the order, citing the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark.
• The Supreme Court is expected to resolve the birthright citizenship dispute, potentially redefining U.S. law and affecting thousands annually.

The Supreme Court is set to decide on two critical issues, both stemming from recent actions by President Trump: his executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship and his firings of federal officials. Both matters have sparked widespread legal disputes and raised significant constitutional questions, with potential long-term consequences for U.S. immigration policies and the separation of powers.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14156, seeking to limit birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or on temporary visas. This measure represents a sharp departure from over 125 years of precedent affirming that most individuals born on U.S. soil are entitled to citizenship, regardless of their parents’ status. The executive order challenges the long-standing interpretation of the Citizenship Clause found in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Supreme Court to Decide on Birthright Citizenship and Trump’s Firings

The executive action has faced swift and widespread opposition. Legal challenges against it emerged almost immediately, led by 22 states, immigrant advocacy groups, and individuals such as expectant mothers. These lawsuits assert that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil, without reference to their parents’ immigration status. Specifically, they argue that the Citizenship Clause secures the principle of unrestricted birthplace-based citizenship, a concept enshrined in U.S. law since the 19th century.

Multiple federal judges have already blocked the implementation of this executive order. On February 14, 2025, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts became the fourth judge to issue a preliminary injunction. Sorokin’s 31-page ruling stated that the Constitution provides broad protections for birthright citizenship. He also cited the Supreme Court’s landmark 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. Sorokin’s decision declared that this historic ruling left “no room” for the administration’s narrow interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.

Other federal judges in Maryland, Washington, and New Hampshire have similarly moved to block the order. In her February 5, 2025 ruling, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman of Maryland emphasized that no court in U.S. history has accepted the argument at the heart of President Trump’s executive order. Boardman concluded that the president’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause would require rewriting constitutional principles settled more than a century ago.

The administration has appealed two of these decisions to federal appeals courts in San Francisco and Richmond, Virginia. Given the broad and conflicting interpretations of the 14th Amendment at stake, it is widely anticipated that the controversy over birthright citizenship will ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court. Until the Court issues a decision, however, enforcement of the executive order remains suspended under the preliminary injunctions issued by lower courts. These injunctions prevent the government from legally implementing the order while the litigation unfolds.

If enacted, the order’s consequences would be sweeping. Children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented or present in the country on temporary visas would be denied U.S. citizenship. This could affect hundreds of thousands of children each year and would also create an entirely new category of individuals born in the U.S. who lack any legal citizenship status. Critics of the order argue that it would effectively assign second-class status to these children, depriving them of basic rights like access to healthcare, voting, and various job opportunities. Many of these children may also face significant barriers to education and employment later in life, despite being born and raised entirely within the United States.

State officials, including Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul and 13 other attorneys general, have voiced strong opposition to the executive order. They argue that a president cannot fundamentally alter constitutional provisions through unilateral executive action. In a February 14, 2025 statement, Kaul stated, “The president cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen.” This sentiment has been echoed by legal experts and immigrant rights groups, all of whom regard the executive order as an unprecedented overreach of executive authority.

Supporters of the executive order contend that the 14th Amendment allows for certain exclusions from automatic citizenship. The Trump administration claims that people born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, as required by the Citizenship Clause. However, this interpretation has not been accepted by any court thus far. Legal scholars and judges have consistently pointed out that the Supreme Court’s 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision leaves little room for the argument advanced by the administration.

While the birthright citizenship issue is the more prominent of the cases expected to come before the Supreme Court, President Trump’s recent firings of federal officials have also drawn legal challenges. Although detailed information about these firings is not yet available, they are expected to raise constitutional questions related to executive power and the independence of federal agencies. The Supreme Court’s rulings in these cases could affect the boundaries of presidential authority, with significant implications for the broader structure of federal governance.

These two key issues—birthright citizenship and federal firings—underline the constitutional and legal tensions created by President Trump’s recent actions. Should the Supreme Court hear both cases, its decisions will likely reshape the interpretation of constitutional provisions such as the 14th Amendment and the limits of executive authority.

Legal experts are paying particular attention to the birthright citizenship issue, given the robust legal precedent against President Trump’s executive order. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court unequivocally defined birthright citizenship as a constitutional guarantee for nearly all individuals born within the United States, regardless of their parents’ status. This decision has been upheld consistently over the years, and any attempt to undo it faces considerable legal hurdles.

Additionally, any Supreme Court decision on the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause would have profound implications for how immigration policy is enforced. A broad endorsement of President Trump’s interpretation could fundamentally alter longstanding principles of U.S. law, creating uncertainty not only for immigrants but also for individuals born in the U.S. Critics warn that this could lead to a significant increase in the number of stateless individuals—a situation both legally and ethically challenging to address.

As of February 18, 2025, the Supreme Court has yet to schedule a hearing for either of these matters. However, given the constitutional importance and practical urgency of the questions raised, expectations are high that the Court will prioritize these cases in its upcoming docket.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court is likely to play a pivotal role in resolving the controversies surrounding President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship and his firings of federal officials. These cases will test the limits of presidential authority, challenge the interpretation of long-established constitutional clauses, and shape U.S. immigration and governance for decades to come. The rulings will not only determine the immediate direction of immigration policy but also influence broader debates over executive power and the rights of individuals born on U.S. soil. Readers can find more official details on the 14th Amendment and its Citizenship Clause on the National Archives’ website. As reported by VisaVerge.com, this ongoing litigation underscores the critical role of the courts in determining the boundaries of constitutional authority and the protections afforded to individuals under U.S. law.

Learn Today

Executive Order → A directive issued by a president to manage operations of the federal government, carrying the force of law.
Birthright Citizenship → The legal right to citizenship for all individuals born within a country’s territory, regardless of parents’ status.
Citizenship Clause → A section of the 14th Amendment ensuring U.S. citizenship to individuals born or naturalized in the United States.
Preliminary Injunction → A temporary court order preventing an action until a final ruling is made during ongoing litigation.
Stateless Individuals → People who lack recognized citizenship in any country, often facing significant legal and social challenges.

This Article in a Nutshell

The Supreme Court faces a historic decision on birthright citizenship, challenging 14th Amendment principles upheld since 1898. President Trump’s executive order seeks to deny citizenship to children born to undocumented or temporary visa holders. Critics argue it violates constitutional guarantees, while supporters claim reinterpretation is overdue. This ruling may redefine U.S. immigration forever.
— By VisaVerge.com