US Supreme Court to shortly commence hearing on US birthright citizenship

On Jan 20, 2025, US President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order (EO), titled ‘Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,’ that ended birthright citizenship for children born in the US to non-citizen parents.

TOI in its analysis had pointed out that the lakhs of Indians caught up in a decades-long queue for an employment-linked green card will be will be impacted going forward, as a child born in a family (thirty days from the date of the EO) where the mother is here lawfully but temporarily (eg: as a visitor or on a non-immigrant visa – be it a dependent visa like H-4 or even a work visa) and the ‘father’ is not a green card holder or US citizen will not get automatic American citizenship.

Also read: Citizenship by birth curtailed even for legal immigrants- Over 1 million Indians in green card queue impacted

District courts blocked implementation of the EO

In response to the EO, nearly 22 states and several civil rights groups filed lawsuits challenging its constitutionality. Several district courts issued nationwide injunctions preventing the implementation of the EO anywhere in the country

The petitioners had challenged the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all individuals born on US soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status.

The US Supreme Court, in 1989 in the case of Wong Kim Ark had affirmed that children born in America to foreign nationals are indeed citizens under the Constitution.

Trump’s executive order points out that the 14 th Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the US. It has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the US but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. In other words, it requires one of the parents to be a US green card holder or US citizen for the child to get birthright citizenship.

Supreme Court’s hearing begins on May 15

The US Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on May 15, 2025, regarding the legality of the EO and the scope of nationwide injunctions issued by the district courts.

FWD.US, a bipartisan political organization, in its policy brief points out that: The Trump administration isn't even defending its radical constitutional theory in the Supreme Court—likely because it knows the argument would fail—and instead focuses on the legality of nationwide injunctions. Such injunctions have been at the center of political debate in recent years across a variety of policy areas.

Proponents argue that these injunctions are necessary to give complete relief to the plaintiffs and also to prevent harm to individuals beyond those named in the cases, especially in cases involving the federal Constitution. Critics argue that such injunctions go beyond the appropriate authority of district court judges and unlawfully limit the authority of the Executive Branch.

It adds that, while it is perfectly reasonable for the Supreme Court to rule on the legal principles governing issuance of nationwide injunctions, limiting the relief in this case could result in nationwide chaos and enable the widespread infringement of core constitutional rights.