By: José Niño
In a case that could reshape the United States’s future, the Supreme Court is poised to rule whether being born on U.S. soil still guarantees citizenship for all.
Click the Link Below to Listen to the Audio Below
The court is specifically reviewing President Donald Trump’s executive order that targets birthright citizenship. The order was signed on Jan. 20, 2025. It seeks to exclude children of illegal aliens and temporary visa holders from automatic citizenship under the 14th Amendment. This move has ignited fierce debates about national identity, constitutional fidelity, and immigration policy.
At the heart of the dispute lies the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which determined that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born on American soil. The Trump administration contends that the decision’s scope was narrow, applying only to children of legal permanent residents as opposed to illegal aliens or temporary migrants. This interpretation clashes with lower court rulings, where multiple federal judges have deemed the order to be unconstitutional.
Judge John Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, emphasized that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause “unequivocally applies to children born in the territorial United States—regardless of the immigration status of their parents.”
In a similar vein, Judge Deborah Boardman rejected the administration’s claim that Wong Kim Ark’s reasoning was mere dicta, emphasizing that its analysis of “jurisdiction” was fundamental to the court’s decision.
Legal experts broadly agree that changing birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment as opposed to an executive order.
Proponents of restricting birthright citizenship, including the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), argue that the policy incentivizes unauthorized migration. Key findings from these groups include estimates from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) that approximately 300,000 children each year gain U.S. citizenship by being born to illegal alien mothers, resulting in a taxpayer cost of $2.4 billion for publicly funded births. Many women purposely sneak across the border to have their baby so that the child can enjoy all the benefits of U.S. citizenship, at taxpayer expense.
FAIR reported in 2019 that the United States is home to 14.3 million illegal immigrants, with birthright citizenship serving as a “pull factor” for families seeking greater economic opportunities in the country. As of March 2025, FAIR projects that 18.6 million illegal aliens are residing in the United States. These groups contend that ending birthright citizenship would reduce fiscal burdens and disincentivize illegal entry.
The executive order being challenged is Executive Order 14156, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” This order denies citizenship to children if the mother is illegal and the father is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident, or if the mother is a temporary visitor—such as someone on a student or tourist visa—and the father lacks legal status. In the latter cases, the country of origin would provide the child’s citizenship.
The order has faced immediate legal pushback. Federal courts in deep blue Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington have blocked its enforcement, citing conflicts with the Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark decision and the plain text of the 14th Amendment.
In addition, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit arguing that the order would create a “permanent underclass” of stateless children and violates due process. The administration has appealed to the Supreme Court to narrow the injunctions to specific plaintiffs, but lower courts have upheld the nationwide injunctions.
The stakes are high in these battles, as America’s racial demographics are trending darker, thanks to mass migration from mostly Third World nations. The U.S. Census projects non-Hispanic whites will comprise less than 50% of the population by 2045. We may be even closer than that, as white census numbers have reportedly been vastly overcounted.
The Supreme Court’s decision will hinge on whether it upholds 127 years of precedent or endorses a long overdue reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Some legal experts caution that overturning Wong Kim Ark would destabilize a cornerstone of American democracy, while supporters of the order frame it as a necessary measure to curtail “anchor baby” exploitation and protect the country’s European racial demographic core.
Beyond defining citizenship, the verdict will shape the nation’s racial makeup in an increasingly turbulent 21st century.
José Niño is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. You can contact him via Facebook and Twitter. Get his e-book, The 10 Myths of Gun Control at josealbertonino.gumroad.com. Subscribe to his “Substack” newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.
(function() {
var zergnet = document.createElement(‘script’);
zergnet.type=”text/javascript”; zergnet.async = true;
zergnet.src = (document.location.protocol == “https:” ? “https:” : “http:”) + ‘//www.zergnet.com/zerg.js?id=88892’;
var znscr = document.getElementsByTagName(‘script’)[0];
znscr.parentNode.insertBefore(zergnet, znscr);
})();
