The nation awaits what may be the most consequential immigration ruling in over a century.
Courts have uniformly blocked the Trump administration from implementing the executive order, and a Supreme Court decision is expected by the end of June or early July.
After more than two hours of oral argument on April 1, 2026, in Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365),
a majority of the Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical of the Trump administration's argument on birthright citizenship and appeared ready to rule in favor of upholding automatic citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil.
What's at Stake
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14,160, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," which declared that individuals born in the United States are not U.S. citizens at birth if their parents lack sufficient legal status. Specifically, the order directs federal agencies not to recognize citizenship claims for children born after February 20, 2025, if: (1) the mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. and the father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident, or (2) the mother's presence in the U.S. was lawful but temporary and the father was not a U.S. citizen or LPR. The order was issued on the alleged basis that the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause does not confer birthright citizenship on such children because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
More than 250,000 babies born in the U.S. each year would not be citizens, according to research from the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University's Population Research Institute.
The order also targets children whose parents have Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or are in the U.S. on student or work visas, dramatically increasing the number of families affected.
The Road to the Supreme Court
The case has taken a winding path.
Multiple district court judges quickly blocked the executive order by issuing universal injunctions, and these cases were consolidated.
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Trump v. CASA that federal district courts generally cannot issue nationwide injunctions, but made no decision on the underlying birthright citizenship question.
The day of the Court's ruling, the ACLU filed Barbara v. Trump as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, seeking a class-wide injunction.
The district court issued a preliminary injunction and provisionally certified a nationwide class of children affected by the order, holding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. That decision was appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment.
Oral Arguments: A Historic Day
Oral arguments took place on April 1, 2026. Trump attended the oral arguments, a first for any sitting president in the official records. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer represented the government's case, while Cecillia Wang of the ACLU represented the respondents.
Court observers stated that from the questioning, the majority of the court was skeptical of the government's position on birthright citizenship.
Critically, that skepticism extended across ideological lines.
In response to the Trump administration's argument that "we're in a new world" since the 14th Amendment was passed, Chief Justice John Roberts shot back: "It's the same Constitution." Conservative justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch also questioned Trump's central arguments.
The "Domicile" Debate
The government's theory hinged on the concept of "domicile."
The executive branch argued that the fact that Wong Kim Ark's parents were lawfully in San Francisco for twenty years indicates they were "domiciled" in the United States, and that this mattered to the 1898 decision. The government argued that the Court's focus on "domicile" in Wong Kim Ark suggests this was central to the Court's reasoning, and therefore the Court in Barbara should apply this "domicile" analysis to the Citizenship Clause.
But multiple justices pushed back.
Justice Gorsuch challenged the government's contention that the domicile of the parents mattered based on historical evidence that, without strict immigration laws in the 1860s, it was much easier to establish a domicile than it is today.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the practicality of the Trump proposal. "How would it work?" she asked. "How would you adjudicate these cases? You're not going to know at the time of birth whether they have the intent to stay or not, including U.S. citizens by the way."
Justice Elena Kagan told Sauer: "I think even your brief concedes that the position you're taking now is a revisionist one with respect to a substantial part of our history."
Justice Kavanaugh asked what many considered the pivotal question: if the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted to limit birthright citizenship, why did they choose different language than the Civil Rights Act of 1866?
Where the Justices May Land
Transcript analysis is most consistent with a 7-2 or 6-3 outcome favoring the challengers — with Thomas and Alito as the most probable dissents, and Barrett as the swing justice.
Justice Alito questioned the broad application of birthright citizenship, arguing that modern illegal immigration was "basically unknown" when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868.
Justice Thomas also seemed skeptical, favoring a view that requires "domicile" or legal allegiance to the U.S.
Practical Implications for Immigrant Families
For the millions of families potentially affected, the stakes could not be higher. The executive order's reach extends far beyond undocumented immigrants.
Families where both parents only have a temporary legal status — including Temporary Protected Status (TPS), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), H-1B holders, student J-1 visas, or H-2A visas for agricultural workers — would see their babies denied birthright citizenship.
Encompassed are all nonimmigrant visa holders, including but not limited to participants in the Visa Waiver Program, F-1 students, and B-1, B-2, H-1B, H-4, L-1, L-2, E-1, E-2, E-3, TN, and O-1 visa holders.
The plaintiff families seek to preserve access to citizenship-related benefits including Social Security, SNAP, and Medicaid.
If the order goes into effect, whether impacted children could get citizenship from their parents' home country would depend on different factors, including their parents' immigration status and home country. Without birthright citizenship, some children could be left stateless, without any country recognizing them as a national or a citizen.
Research has found that ending birthright citizenship could dramatically increase the population of undocumented people in the United States over time. Children denied citizenship would pass their uncertain legal status to future generations, creating a legally and socially disadvantaged class of millions of people who lack basic rights. Despite being born in the United States, these individuals would be unable to vote, access critical services, or fully participate in civic life.
What Families Should Know Now
To date, the Trump administration has not been allowed to enforce the executive order on birthright citizenship.
The Constitution's existing rule remains in place. Birthright citizenship still applies regardless of a parent's immigration status, meaning children born in the United States continue to receive citizenship whether their parents are tourists, undocumented immigrants, visa overstays, or temporary workers.
However,
although the executive order is on hold pending the Supreme Court's decision in Barbara, USCIS's implementation plan, released on July 25, 2025, outlines how the order would be applied if it were ultimately upheld.
Families expecting children should consult with an experienced immigration attorney to understand how various potential outcomes could affect their specific circumstances.
Looking Ahead
The case will likely determine the future of birthright citizenship in the United States.
Should the decision reflect the arguments, it will mark the second major Trump administration policy to fall at the hands of a conservative Supreme Court. The court also struck down Trump's sweeping emergency global tariffs this year.
As ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang told the justices during argument, the 14th Amendment was designed to establish a universal rule. The Court's response to that claim — expected within weeks — will reverberate through American immigration law for generations to come.
ClinchLaw is closely monitoring Trump v. Barbara and will provide immediate analysis when the Supreme Court issues its decision. If you or a family member may be affected by this case, contact our immigration attorneys for a confidential consultation.