Particle.news
Download on the App Store
6 ARTICLES
·
2h ago

Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to Trump Order Limiting Birthright Citizenship

The justices will weigh whether the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause allows limits on who becomes a citizen at birth.

Norman Wong, the great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark, walks along Chinatown, in San Francisco, California, U.S., March 25, 2026. In 1898, Wong Kim Ark challenged the U.S. government after being denied re-entry to the country following a trip to his parents' homeland. Though he was born in the United States, authorities claimed he was not a citizen. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, firmly establishing that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
Demonstrators rally outside the Supreme Court on May 15, 2025.
Barbara, a 35-year old pregnant asylum-seeker from Cuba, poses for a portrait in Louisville, Kentucky, on May 9, 2025.
Image

Overview

  • The Court is set to hear Trump v. Barbara, a case testing President Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025 executive order that withholds citizenship from children born after Feb. 19, 2025 to parents who are here illegally or on temporary visas.
  • The dispute turns on the 14th Amendment phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” with both sides arguing over whether that language covers virtually all U.S.-born children or permits exclusions.
  • Longstanding precedent in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark recognized birthright citizenship while naming narrow exceptions for children of diplomats, invading armies, and, at the time, some American Indians, and the justices will consider whether that list is complete.
  • The Court is expected to rule by June, and lawyers defending broad birthright citizenship warn that curbing it could spur states to adopt conflicting rules and create administrative chaos for families and agencies.
  • Legal views are split, with scholars like Ilan Wurman and officials such as Iowa’s solicitor general Eric Wessan urging a narrower reading tied to lawful presence, while a Washington Post column cited by Raw Story describes wide scholarly opposition and faults the administration’s reading of text and precedent.