US Supreme Court To Rule On President Trump’s Bid To End Birthright Citizenship

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear the challenge to President Donald Trump’s order redefining birthright citizenship—a directive that declares children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

The case gives the Court a rare opportunity to directly evaluate the limits of presidential authority over citizenship.

The justices will take up Trump’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that struck down the restrictions, which have not taken effect anywhere in the country.

Arguments are scheduled for the spring, with a ruling expected by early summer.

The order, signed on Jan. 20—the first day of Trump’s second term — forms a central pillar of his administration’s expanded immigration crackdown.

It arrives alongside a series of aggressive enforcement policies, including surges in major cities and the first peacetime use of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act.

Federal courts have responded unevenly. The Supreme Court temporarily halted the administration’s attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act to fast-track deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members, yet allowed sweeping immigration stops in the Los Angeles area to resume after a lower court blocked stops based solely on “race, language, job or location.”

Another administration request — an emergency appeal seeking permission to deploy National Guard troops for immigration operations in the Chicago area — remains pending after a lower court placed an indefinite hold on the deployment.

Before the Supreme Court decided to intervene, the legal battle around birthright citizenship had already intensified.

In July, it was reported that a federal judge issued a new nationwide block against Trump’s executive order.

US District Judge Joseph Laplante, ruling from the bench, approved a nationwide class that “will be comprised only of those deprived of citizenship,” and imposed an injunction preventing enforcement of the Jan. 20 order against “born and unborn babies who would be impacted by the policy.”

Laplante, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, underscored the gravity of the issue.
“The preliminary injunction is just not a close call to the court,” he said, describing the deprivation of citizenship and the abrupt reversal of long-standing policy as “irreparable harm.”

He added that “US citizenship … is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”
Although he planned to pause his injunction briefly to allow the administration to appeal, the ruling has become a defining obstacle to Trump’s policy — particularly as other courts reassess their approaches in light of recent Supreme Court guidance limiting lower-court authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

With the justices now taking up the case directly, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision is poised to become one of the most consequential immigration rulings in decades, determining not only the fate of the order but the scope of executive power to redefine one of the nation’s foundational principles.