The US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on May 15 regarding the federal government’s request to implement President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship—the constitutional guarantee that virtually all individuals born on US soil automatically become citizens. Oral arguments will be for three consolidated cases: Trump v. CASA, Inc., Trump v. Washington and Trump v. New Jersey.

What is birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship stems from Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states that “[a]ll 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.” This amendment, ratified in 1868 following the Civil War, was intended to overrule the Supreme Court’s 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which held that Black people whose ancestors were brought to the United States as enslaved persons were not entitled to citizenship.

The Supreme Court solidified this interpretation in 1898 with United States v. Wong Kim Ark, ruling that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents was a US citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. For over 125 years, this interpretation has remained largely unchallenged, with citizenship automatically granted to almost all individuals born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ citizenship or immigration status.

What does Trump’s executive order do?

Shortly after his January 2025 inauguration, President Trump issued an executive order declaring that individuals born in the United States will not automatically receive citizenship if their parents are in the country illegally or on temporary visas. This fulfilled a campaign promise from his successful 2024 presidential bid.

The order directly challenges the longstanding interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the precedent established in Wong Kim Ark.

What legal challenges has the order faced?

The executive order immediately prompted legal action across the country, with challengers arguing the order violates the longstanding interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the precedent of Wong Kim Ark.

In early February, Seattle Senior US District Judge John Coughenour blocked the order from being enforced throughout the country—what is called a nationwide injunction.

Next, US District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland temporarily barred enforcement of the order there, in a lawsuit brought by immigrants’ rights groups and several pregnant women.

Then, in Massachusetts, US District Judge Leo Sorokin granted a request from 18 states, the District of Columbia, and San Francisco to halt Trump’s order across the country.

Federal appeals courts in San Francisco, Richmond and Boston all rejected the Trump administration’s requests to limit these nationwide injunctions.

How did the case reach the Supreme Court?

The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court on March 13, with then-Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris submitting an “application for a partial stay“—asking that the Court partially lift the nationwide injunctions. The administration asked to be allowed to enforce the order except against the specific plaintiffs named in the lawsuits, identified members of challenging organizations, and individuals living in states challenging the order.

In a brief, unsigned order, the justices declined to immediately consider the administration’s request, instead scheduling oral arguments for May 15. The Court has kept the nationwide injunctions in place until it rules on the case.

What are the legal arguments?

The Trump administration argues that the president has the authority to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause through executive action. They also argue that the original meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment excludes children of unauthorized immigrants or temporary visitors. Finally, the administration claims these nationwide injunctions are an example of courts harnessing too much power and impeding the executive’s ability to act. The administration urges the Justices to “declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched.”

Those opposing the executive order argue that upholding the birthright citizenship promise, which has been in place for over 125 years, does not equate to the “emergency” that the Trump administration sees it as, and that overruling the nationwide injunctions is not warranted. They also argue that the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wong Kim Ark establish birthright citizenship for nearly all children born in the United States. The challengers also argue that the high number of nationwide injunctions over the last few months is fitting—and necessary—in response to Trump’s unprecedented pace of issuing executive orders.

What are the potential implications?

If the Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration, it would represent one of the most significant reversals of constitutional interpretation in American history.

A ruling that upholds the executive order could also affect millions of future children born to non-citizens in the United States and fundamentally alter the concept of American citizenship that has existed for generations. It could also complicate United States citizenship and immigration matters, resulting in a messy, multi-tiered system dependent on parents’ immigration status and creating stateless children whose parents’ countries of origin do not automatically grant citizenship based on parentage.

Supporters of the order argue that the executive order corrects what they see as misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s original intent. They also argue the executive order removes incentives for illegal immigration, a major concern of the Trump administration.

Regardless of the parties’ arguments, legal scholars note that the case presents significant questions about executive power, constitutional interpretation, and judicial authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

What happens next?

The Supreme Court has allocated one hour for oral arguments on May 15, though the session will likely run longer given the case’s complexity and significance. A decision is expected by late June or early July 2025.

While the Court has left the nationwide injunctions in place until arguments are heard, the 6-3 conservative majority has previously expressed skepticism toward broad injunctions against executive actions.

Whatever the outcome, this case represents one of the most consequential challenges to established constitutional interpretation in decades, with profound implications for American identity and the meaning of citizenship itself.