Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Policy
Table of Contents
The Supreme Court agreed on December 5, 2025, to review a lower court ruling that blocked President Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. This case marks another significant legal battle involving the Trump administration’s policies and presents a critical test of the court’s conservative majority.
The high court’s decision to hear Trump v. Barbara comes as it also considers challenges to Trump’s economic tariffs and his authority to dismiss heads of independent agencies. Until recently, the court primarily addressed whether Trump’s policies could proceed while being litigated, often ruling in his favor. However, lower courts consistently prevented the birthright citizenship policy from being implemented, setting the stage for this landmark review.
A Century-Old Clause Under Scrutiny
At the heart of the dispute is the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, ratified after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved people. The clause states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Trump’s administration argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily, as they may maintain allegiance to their country of origin.
The administration, in an appeal led by Solicitor General John Sauer, contends that lower court decisions “undermine our border security” and “confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.” Trump directed federal agencies to cease recognizing the citizenship of U.S.-born children without at least one parent who is a citizen or “green card” holder.
Legal Challenges and Lower Court Rulings
Multiple federal courts have already rejected the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. These rulings found the policy contradicted the plain language of the citizenship clause, conflicted with a landmark 1898 Supreme Court decision, and violated the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1940. The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals, in a separate case, described the president’s approach as a “strained and novel interpretation of the Constitution” that was “contrary to justice.”
The current case before the Supreme Court stems from a class-action lawsuit filed in New Hampshire by parents and children who would be denied automatic citizenship under the policy. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the challengers, urged the court to dismiss the case outright. “The president’s arguments are so bad that the court should just deny review outright, and put this cruel policy to bed without further delay,” stated an ACLU attorney. Following the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the appeal, ACLU national legal director Cecillia Wang expressed optimism that the court would “put this issue to rest once and for all.”
A Test for the Conservative Court
Legal experts suggest that this case presents an opportunity for the conservative-leaning Supreme Court – which includes three justices appointed by Trump – to demonstrate its independence. According to some analysts, a ruling against the administration would signal the court’s willingness to check presidential power.
The case is expected to be argued next year, with a decision anticipated by summer. The outcome will have profound implications for the rights of U.S.-born children and the interpretation of one of the most fundamental clauses in the Constitution.
