The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to deliver a ruling that could fundamentally redefine the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. At issue is former President Trump’s executive order, issued on 20 January 2025, directing federal agencies to withhold U.S. citizenship from children born on American soil unless at least one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. With lower courts in Maryland, Washington, Massachusetts and others issuing nationwide injunctions, the Court must determine both the order’s constitutionality under the longstanding precedents, rooted in Wong Kim Ark (1898), and whether lower courts are empowered to enact universal blocks.
Prior judicial opinion has expressed significant skepticism about the executive order’s legality. On 4 June 2025, a U.S. appellate court described the directive as likely in breach of the 14th Amendment, noting its sweeping departure from over a century of judicial interpretation. Indeed, the Supreme Court’s May oral arguments suggested deep division among the Justices, raising concerns about constitutional disruption and ratification of universal injunctions as a tool to uphold nationwide rulings.
If the Court upholds Trump’s order, it would overturn established jus soli principles, potentially affecting over 150,000 births annually. Such a decision would require constitutional reinterpretation or a formal amendment. Conversely, striking it down would reaffirm birthright citizenship protections, preserve the legacy of Wong Kim Ark, and reinforce judicial authority to issue nationwide injunctions in defence of constitutional rights.
Beyond the core citizenship question, the case could influence broader judicial practice. The Court is also considering whether to restrict or redefine the use of universal injunctions, a legal instrument increasingly contested by lawmakers including Sen. Chuck Grassley, who suggests expanding class‑action frameworks instead.
The Court’s decision, expected 27 June 2025, promises to reshape not only immigration law but also the structural boundaries between executive power and judicial oversight. Its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause and nationwide injunction authority will reverberate through future constitutional debates and executive actions.