On April 1, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a challenge to President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. Trump’s order has never gone into effect, as challenges to it were filed almost immediately, and several federal judges around the country temporarily barred the government from implementing the order throughout the country while litigation over the order’s constitutionality continued. All of the lower courts that have weighed in so far have ruled that the order is unconstitutional, but the Trump administration contends that those rulings – as well as the longstanding view that virtually everyone born in the United States is entitled to U.S. citizenship – are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution.
What changed
On January 20, 2025, after he was sworn into office for a second term, Trump issued the executive order ending birthright citizenship. Beginning in 30 days, the order indicated, babies born in the United States will not be automatically entitled to citizenship if their parents are in this country either illegally or temporarily.
The citizenship clause confers citizenship on anyone “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It was intended to overrule the Supreme Court’s notorious 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, holding that a Black person whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as enslaved persons was not entitled to any protection from the federal courts because he was not a U.S. citizen.
The dispute centers on how to interpret the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The Trump administration argues that to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, you must be “completely subject” to its “political jurisdiction,” which means that you must owe it “direct and immediate allegiance” and receive “protection” from it.
Representing the Trump administration, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was adopted to give newly freed enslaved people and their children citizenship. For decades after the adoption of the clause, he said, commentators recognized that the children of temporary visitors were not citizens. Moreover, he added, most countries do not have birthright citizenship – which, he argued, rewards illegal immigration.
The Trump administration insists that to interpret the statute, courts should look at what it “actually means, not what Congress thought it meant in 1940 or 1952.” When the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was “transplant[ed]” from the 14th Amendment to the statute, Sauer emphasizes, it brought with it “the meaning that the phrase carries in the Constitution” – which, the government has argued, does not confer automatic citizenship on the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors.
The challengers take the opposite view: they counter that the Trump administration “is asking for nothing less than a remaking of our Nation’s constitutional foundations” – one that “would cast a shadow over the citizenship of millions upon millions of Americans, going back generations.”
Why it matters
For practitioners, this case creates immediate operational uncertainty. Trump’s order has never gone into effect, as challenges to it were filed almost immediately, and several federal judges around the country temporarily barred the government from implementing the order throughout the country while litigation over the order’s constitutionality continued. That means USCIS and State Department currently must follow pre-order rules: virtually all U.S.-born children receive citizenship at birth, regardless of parental status.
But a Supreme Court decision could reverse that framework overnight. A decision in the case is expected by late June or early July. Immigration practitioners need to understand the competing constitutional theories now, because:
- Citizenship adjudication: USCIS employees, consular officers, and state vital records officials will need new guidance on how to determine birthright citizenship eligibility if the Court upholds or narrows the order.
- Timing: Clients born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent, or born in the U.S. under current rules, may face sudden gaps in eligibility for work authorization, green card sponsorship, or other status-dependent benefits.
- Retroactivity: Practitioners must understand whether any adverse ruling would apply only going forward or could affect previously-issued documents.
Way forward
-
Monitor the Supreme Court calendar: The decision is expected by late June or early July 2026. Set alerts for https://www.supremecourt.gov and SCOTUSblog to receive immediate notice of the opinion.
-
Review current client files: Identify any clients (or their children) whose citizenship status depends on birth in the U.S. to parents without status or on temporary visas. Document the current legal rule and the dates on which benefits were conferred or documents were issued, in case retroactivity becomes an issue.
-
Do not assume stability: For new clients seeking advice on birth-in-U.S. citizenship, disclose that the law is currently under active Supreme Court review and may change substantially within weeks. Do not file claims that are time-sensitive without explicit understanding from the client that the legal landscape may shift.
-
Stay current on lower-court guidance: Until the Supreme Court rules, all federal district and appeals courts continue to block enforcement of the order. Check https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/trump-v-barbara/ for live coverage on April 1 and for the opinion release.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Articles.folaform.com is a software company, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and changes rapidly, especially when pending litigation may resolve core questions. Do not rely on this article as a substitute for advice from a licensed immigration attorney. Verify all statements against the source materials linked above and consult your own counsel before making filing or advisory decisions. Policy guidance can change without notice, and this article may not reflect updates issued after its publication date.