Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Supreme Court Weighs Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Amid Constitutional Debate

News

Supreme Court Weighs Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Amid Constitutional Debate

Members of CASA advocacy group gather outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. toask justices to protect birthright citizenship on May 15, 2025.

Angeles Ponpa/Medill NewsService

WASHINGTON- The Supreme Court on Thursday heard oral arguments over a Trump administration order that would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil to undocumented immigrant parents and others in the country temporarily. The order challenged more than a Century of legal precedent.

The case centers on Executive Order 14160, signed in January by President Donald Trump, which asserts that the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause does not apply to children born to noncitizens without permanent legal status. Lower courts swiftly blocked the policy, prompting a high-stakes showdown over both the scope of the amendment and the president's power to unilaterally reinterpret it.


Solicitor General D. John Sauer, defending the administration, argued that the 14th Amendment was intended to grant citizenship specifically to formerly enslaved people, not to “illegal aliens or people here temporarily.”

“We have our lower courts making snap judgments,” Sauer said, criticizing nationwide injunctions as judicial overreach.

Justices across the ideological spectrum appeared skeptical of the administration’s argument.

“Congress decides birthright citizenship, not the executive branch,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor flatly.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that the administration’s order would create a chaotic situation for hospitals.

“How’s it going to work? What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with newborns?” he said.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concern that Trump’s ban would force many families to pay for lawyers and file lawsuits to prove their children are legitimate citizens.

“Your case is turning the court system into a ‘catch me if you can’ regime where everyone has to get a lawyer and file a lawsuit,” said Jackson.

Justice Elena Kagan raised practical concerns about fairness, suggesting that only individuals with the resources to sue would be able to protect their rights. “The ones who can’t afford to go to court, they’re the ones who are going to lose,” she said.

- YouTubeyoutu.be

Outside the courthouse, protesters gathered with signs defending the right to citizenship. Among them was Maya, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico City who came to the United States to follow her husband in pursuit of a better economic life. She asked that her last name not be published because she feared deportation.

“Our intention isn’t to come to this country and have kids, maybe that comes after,” she said in Spanish. “Those of us who migrate, we come with the intention of a better life. Citizenship for kids of undocumented parents is a right, It shouldn’t matter what political opinions people have.”

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, who led a coalition of states challenging the order, warned that the executive action threatened to erode fundamental constitutional protections.

“If they can dismantle this amendment with a Sharpie and a stroke of a pen and give the president significant authority,” Campbell told the crowd, “It moves toward being a king versus a democratic president. They can come for the First Amendment, they can come for the Second.”

The case also raised questions about the legality of sweeping injunctions issued by federal judges to halt presidential policies nationwide. Some conservative justices indicated openness to curbing that power, even if they disagreed with the administration's reading of the Constitution.

Thursday’s arguments marked one of the most consequential immigration hearings at the high court in years, with implications that could go far beyond citizenship policy. A ruling in favor of the administration could significantly expand executive authority in defining constitutional rights.

A decision was expected by the end of June.

Angeles Ponpa is a graduate student at Northwestern Medill in the Politics, Policy, and Foreign Affairs specialization. Ponpa specializes in covering immigration and does bilingual reporting in both English and Spanish.

Read More

Inside Courthouse Immigration Arrests: Controversy, Legal History, and Implications

People protest in Chicago as part of the No Kings Rallies at Daley Plaza on June 14, 2025 in Chicago, Illinois.

Photo by Kamil Krzaczynski/Getty Images for No Kings

Inside Courthouse Immigration Arrests: Controversy, Legal History, and Implications

Background

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump promised voters, “One day, I will launch the largest deportation program of criminals in the history of America.” On his inauguration day, he published a directive for Immigration and Customs and Enforcement (ICE) officers to use their own discretion when conducting immigration arrests. Since then, ICE officers have arrested immigrants in or around courthouses in at least seven different states.

Keep ReadingShow less
ICE Policy Challenged in Court for Blocking Congressional Oversight of Detention Centers

Federal agents guard outside of a federal building and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in downtown Los Angeles as demonstrations continue after a series of immigration raids began last Friday on June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles, California.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

ICE Policy Challenged in Court for Blocking Congressional Oversight of Detention Centers

In a constitutional democracy, congressional oversight is not a courtesy—it is a cornerstone of the separation of powers enshrined in our founding documents.

Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) has filed an amicus brief in Neguse v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, arguing that ICE’s policy restricting unannounced visits by members of Congress “directly violates federal law.” Twelve lawmakers brought this suit to challenge ICE’s new requirement that elected officials provide seven days’ notice before visiting detention facilities—an edict that undermines transparency and shields executive agencies from scrutiny.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person in a military uniform holding a gavel.

As the Trump administration redefines “Warrior Ethos,” U.S. military leaders face a crucial test: defend democracy or follow unlawful orders.

Getty Images, Liudmila Chernetska

Warrior Ethos or Rule of Law? The Military’s Defining Moment

Does Secretary Hegseth’s extraordinary summoning of hundreds of U.S. command generals and admirals to a Sept. 30 meeting and the repugnant reinstatement of Medals of Honor to 20 participants in the infamous 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre—in which 300 Lakota Sioux men, women, and children were killed—foreshadow the imposition of a twisted approach to U.S. “Warrior Ethos”? Should military leaders accept an ethos that ignores the rule of law?

Active duty and retired officers must trumpet a resounding: NO, that is not acceptable. And, we civilians must realize the stakes and join them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Impartiality Under Fire: A Federal Judge’s Warning on Judicial Independence
brown mallet on gray wooden surface
Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash

Impartiality Under Fire: A Federal Judge’s Warning on Judicial Independence

In times of democratic strain, clarity must come not only from scholars and journalists but also from those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution with impartiality and courage.

This second piece in a series in The Fulcrum, “Judges on Democracy,” where we invite retired federal judges to speak directly to the American public about the foundational principles of our legal system: the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the indispensable role of an independent judiciary to our democratic republic.

Keep ReadingShow less