The Supreme Court agreed on December 5, 2025, to hear a challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive order that narrows birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.
The case comes from New Hampshire and is expected to be argued in the spring, with a decision by the end of June 2026. Lower courts have uniformly blocked the policy, concluding that it conflicts with the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and more than a century of precedent. A White House spokeswoman, Abigail Jackson, said the administration looks forward to defending the order at the high court.
The dispute places a high-profile immigration fight before a court with a 6–3 conservative majority that has so far avoided direct rulings on the merits of the order. The justices previously addressed only procedural questions related to injunctions, leaving the constitutional issue unresolved. The outcome now will determine whether the federal government can withhold automatic citizenship from many U.S.-born children based on their parents’ status.
What the executive order would do
Signed on January 20, 2025, the order instructs federal agencies not to recognize U.S. citizenship at birth if neither parent is a citizen or a green-card holder. Babies born to temporary visitors, such as students or tourists, and to people who entered the country unlawfully would not receive citizenship by virtue of birth on U.S. soil.
The administration argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Citizenship Clause was historically limited to those owing full political allegiance to the United States.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer has told the justices that it is not enough for a person to be subject to U.S. laws in a general sense. In the government’s view, citizenship at birth requires that the child’s parents have a recognized and enduring legal tie to the country. The challengers say the order reverses long-settled practice and would deny citizenship to thousands of newborns each year who are now recognized as Americans from birth.
How the case reached the court
The policy has been enjoined nationwide since shortly after it was announced. District and appellate courts concluded that the order likely violates the Constitution and existing federal statutes governing nationality. Plaintiffs represented by the American Civil Liberties Union include families whose newborns would fall under the order’s limits, as well as pregnant women nearing delivery dates. In their filings, they argue that the measure is unlawful “on the text, history and precedent” of the Citizenship Clause.
The court’s decision to grant review followed months of litigation over the scope of interim relief. Earlier in 2025 the justices curtailed the use of universal injunctions issued by single district judges, ruling that such relief should be tightly tailored to the parties before the court.
That procedural ruling left the policy blocked under narrower orders and set the stage for a final decision on the merits this term.
The constitutional landscape
Since 1868, the first sentence of the 14th Amendment has declared that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court held that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese nationals was a citizen by virtue of his birth on American soil.
The Court recognized narrow exceptions for children of foreign diplomats and of enemy forces occupying U.S. territory. For generations, that framework has been understood to cover nearly everyone born in the country, regardless of parental immigration status.
The administration urges a different reading, focusing on the scope of the “jurisdiction” phrase and arguing that the Clause leaves room to distinguish between families with permanent ties and those here temporarily or unlawfully.
Opponents respond that the text, structure and history of the Amendment admit few exceptions and that Wong Kim Ark squarely rejects the proposed distinction. They also note that Congress has built the immigration system around the longstanding rule, which has guided agency practice and judicial decisions for more than a century.
