Legal Process Regarding Birthright Citizenship in the United States

USA’s birthright citizenship policy became one of the most significant constitutional debates in the nation’s agenda on January 20, 2025, the first day of President Donald Trump’s second term, when he signed an executive order aimed at restricting automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to foreign nationals residing in the country illegally or on temporary statuses such as tourist, student, or temporary work visas. Shortly after the order was issued, numerous state governments, immigrant rights organizations, and civil society groups filed lawsuits in federal courts, and lower courts temporarily halted its implementation nationwide.

The Trump administration appealed the lower courts’ preliminary injunctions and brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held oral arguments on April 1, 2026. President Donald Trump attended the hearing, becoming the first sitting U.S. president to observe oral arguments at the Supreme Court in American history. The central legal debate before the Court focused on how to interpret the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and whether the president has the authority to limit birthright citizenship through an executive order.

The U.S. Supreme Court was expected to issue its ruling on the birthright citizenship case on June 30, 2026, when it announced its final decisions for the term. The case is regarded as one of the most important constitutional cases in recent years because it concerns not only the future of birthright citizenship but also the scope of federal judges’ authority to block the nationwide enforcement of executive orders and the constitutional limits of the executive branch.

Birthright citizenship is a system of nationality in which a person acquires citizenship by virtue of being born within a country’s territory. Known in Latin as jus soli (right of the soil), this principle holds that any child born within a country’s borders is automatically a citizen of that country, regardless of the nationality or immigration status of the parents.

In contrast, many countries apply the jus sanguinis (right of blood) system, which determines citizenship based on the nationality of one or both parents rather than the place of birth. The United States, along with Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina, is among the countries that practice birthright citizenship, while the majority of European nations have adopted more restrictive citizenship models.

The primary legal foundation of birthright citizenship in the United States is the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868. This amendment was enacted after the American Civil War to secure citizenship status for formerly enslaved people and their children.

14. The Citizenship Clause of the Amendment states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

This clause has formed the cornerstone of U.S. citizenship law for approximately 160 years. The same principle was later codified in the federal nationality law of 1940.

The most significant judicial ruling on birthright citizenship is the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in Wong Kim Ark v. United States.

Wong Kim Ark, born in the United States to Chinese immigrant parents, had his citizenship denied by the federal government. However, the Supreme Court ruled that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court noted only very limited exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats or those born in territories under enemy occupation, and concluded that children of foreign nationals born in the United States are entitled to citizenship. This decision continues to serve as a binding precedent on birthright citizenship to this day.

Under current practice, all children born on U.S. territory are automatically recognized as U.S. citizens at birth, except in exceptional circumstances.

Approximately 3.6 million children are born in the United States each year. Birth certificates have long served as the primary proof of citizenship and form the basis for obtaining a Social Security number, applying for a passport, and accessing education and healthcare services.

In adulthood, a birth certificate is accepted as official proof of citizenship for purposes such as voting, applying for public office, securing a home mortgage, and military service.

On January 20, 2025, the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship.

According to the order:

• Children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants,
• Children born in the United States to individuals present on temporary visas such as tourist, student, or temporary work visas, will no longer automatically qualify for U.S. citizenship.

The Trump administration argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment must be reinterpreted. It contends that children of foreign nationals residing in the United States illegally or on temporary status do not fall within this jurisdictional scope.

The Trump administration asserts that the current system encourages illegal immigration and has fueled the practice known as “birth tourism.”

It claims that some foreign families come to the United States solely to ensure their children gain U.S. citizenship, placing a financial burden on public resources and posing national security risks.

Trump has described birthright citizenship as a “costly” and “abused” system and argues that the United States is among only a few countries that still maintain it.

Shortly after its issuance, the Trump executive order was challenged in federal courts by numerous state governments, immigrant rights organizations, and civil society groups.

Plaintiffs argue that the president cannot unilaterally alter clear constitutional provisions through an executive order and that both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark decision explicitly guarantee birthright citizenship.

Lower federal courts temporarily blocked the order from taking effect. In response, the Trump administration appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Two central legal issues are before the Supreme Court in this case.

First, the Court is examining the scope of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment. It must determine whether this phrase includes children born to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary status.

Second, the Court is considering whether the president has the authority to change a long-standing citizenship system solely through an executive order.

The Court’s ruling is expected to set a precedent not only for immigration law but also for the boundaries of presidential power.

If the Supreme Court upholds the Trump administration’s position, children born in the United States will no longer automatically receive citizenship at birth.

Federal agencies will review parents’ immigration status through electronic records to determine whether to issue passports, Social Security numbers, and other citizenship benefits.

In this scenario, a birth certificate may no longer serve as sufficient proof of citizenship on its own, directly affecting approximately 255,000 children each year. There is also concern that some children could become stateless, as they may not be recognized as citizens by any country.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on birthright citizenship is seen as having far-reaching implications—not only for immigration policy but also for how the U.S. Constitution is interpreted, the limits of presidential authority, and the lives of millions of immigrant families.

The decision will serve as a turning point not only in determining the future of birthright citizenship but also in deciding whether a 160-year-old constitutional interpretation in U.S. citizenship law will be preserved.