Supreme Court agrees to rule on Trump’s ‘birthright citizenship’ challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the U.S. Constitution actually includes “birthright citizenship,” the idea that any baby born on U.S. soil regardless of the legal or illegal status of the parents is a U.S. citizen … or not!

That has been the accepted standard for years now, but Trump, pointing out that there remain open questions about the meaning of one of the clauses in the amendment, moved another direction with his executive order.

He pointed out the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

At issue is the meaning of “And subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

He simply said that children born to illegal immigrants or those who are in the U.S. on temporary non-immigrant visas are not automatically citizens by birthright.

The court justices will hear arguments on the differing interpretations on May 15.

BREAKING: Supreme Court says it will hear oral arguments on whether President Trump can implement his proposal to end automatic birthright citizenship. https://t.co/SKcawpI9DT

— NBC News (@NBCNews) April 17, 2025

Breaking: The Supreme Court will officially hear arguments on President Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship on May 15th!

Do you support this, America? pic.twitter.com/fl1uDLlo96

— Tom Homan Border Czar News Reports (@TomHoman_) April 17, 2025

BREAKING: Supreme Court moves cases involving Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship from the emergency docket to its regular merits docket. Oral argument scheduled for May 15. pic.twitter.com/oJU8ZXdmjx

— Steven Mazie (@stevenmazie) April 17, 2025

A report at Fox News explained the Trump administration reached out to the high court after lower courtrs refused to accept that interpretation of the Constitution.

The administration asked the court to allow a narrow version of the order to proceed.

This is another one of the situations where district judges, at the entry level into the federal court system, took on the authority to manage the executive branch decisions by themselves, with nationwide injunctions coming from judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state.

“Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris asked the justices to limit the scope of the rulings to cover only individuals directly impacted by the relevant courts,” the report explained.

“These cases – which involve challenges to the President’s January 20, 2025 Executive Order concerning birthright citizenship – raise important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border,” Harris said.

Ultimately, nearly two dozen leftist states and organizations have sued.

Those political interests claim that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to people born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances.

Similar opposing arguments were presented to the high court during Trump’s first term, when he barred immigration from countries that supported terrorism, and a long list of groups complained that he was unconstitutionally targeting “Muslim” countries.

In that case, the justices eventually affirmed Trump’s policy.

This video shows Trump comment on the case the moment he heard the news it would be heard by the nation’s highest court:

President Trump on ending birthright citizenship: “The case has been so misunderstood. Birthright citizenship was about slavery. It’s not about tourists coming in and touching a piece of sand and all of the sudden they’re a citizen.” pic.twitter.com/x2iDVUboKr

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) April 17, 2025

WND previously has reported that Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Trump’s position.

“Courts are empowered by the Constitution to resolve cases and controversies, not to issue sweeping policy proclamations or manage the executive branch,” Skrmetti said in a statement. “The American people are the ultimate source of authority and legitimacy for every branch of our government, and every court interpreting the Constitution must therefore adhere to the understanding of the voters who adopted the constitutional language.

“Undermining the sovereignty of the American people through judicial overreach threatens to alienate the people from our constitutional system and thereby cause grievous harm to liberty and public order. Our system depends on checks and balances and each branch of government, at both the federal and state levels, is by design intended to push back against overreach by the other branches. That tension between branches is how we prevent the concentration of undue power in any one place and thus keep Americans free. We look forward to the Supreme Court clarifying these fundamental issues and will continue to litigate strategically to advance the interests of Tennessee.”

His announcement explained, “According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, over nine million illegal aliens have entered our country in just the past few years. After crossing the border, many illegal aliens have moved into interior states like Tennessee. This voluminous influx has caused significant strain on resources and poses ongoing economic, health, and public safety challenges for Tennessee and many other states. While lax border security in the past caused much of the problem, it was incentivized and compounded by an expansive interpretation of the Citizenship Clause which is not consistent with numerous sources contemporaneous with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

It said, “The Supreme Court of the United States has never squarely addressed the scope of the Citizenship Clause, though government actors have for decades operated under the assumption that the clause guarantees birthright citizenship in almost all circumstances.”

A decision that the “jurisdiction” clause limits those who are granted U.S. citizenship would be a huge weapon in the arsenal presidents have to protect the integrity of America’s borders, the nation’s security, and its citizens.

Tennessee’s filing supports Trump’s application to stay sweeping preliminary injunctions by multiple district courts in cases addressing birthright citizenship.

It stresses that courts should interpret the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution “in accordance with its original public meaning and should only exercise their judicial power within the confines of specific cases and controversies and consistent with principles of separation of powers.”

Trump’s Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” is his belief that there should be limits. Otherwise, the practice encourages a thriving “birth tourism” industry where illegals break into the U.S., give birth, then obtain public benefits through the status of that child.

The clause was ratified in 1869 and addressed the infamous Supreme Court ruling in Dred Scott that denied citizenship to blacks.

Trump’s argument is that the protections of citizenship do not automatically fall on children born of illegal aliens, or those who are in the nation of temporary visas, as there remain questions whether those are “subject to the jurisdiction.”

Earlier, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost signed on to a brief supporting Trump’s position. He joined 17 other Republican attorneys general to endorse the clarification that children born of illegals inside the United States do not qualify for automatic citizenship.

The states are harmed because such an agenda imposes costs on them.