Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Even this Supreme Court seems unwilling to end birthright citizenship

At least seven justices appear to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment means what it says.

President Trump Attends Supreme Court Arguments Involving His Birthright Citizenship Order
President Trump Attends Supreme Court Arguments Involving His Birthright Citizenship Order
People demonstrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of US President Donald Trump’s expected arrival on April 01, 2026, in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara to determine if President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship is constitutional.
Al Drago/Getty Images
Ian Millhiser
Ian Millhiser is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court.

If you’ve been worried that this Supreme Court might give President Donald Trump the power to strip citizenship away from Americans, you can go ahead and exhale.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging an executive order Trump issued on his first day back in office, which purports to strip citizenship from children born to undocumented immigrants and from many people who are lawfully present in the United States but who are not yet authorized to remain here permanently.

There is no plausible argument that Trump’s executive order is constitutional. The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment provides that “all persons” born in the United States are citizens, with one narrow exception that does not apply in Barbara. Just three days after the executive order was issued, a Reagan-appointed federal judge blocked it — after saying that he’s “been on the bench for over four decades” and that he “can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is.”

Trump’s order has never taken effect thanks to lower court orders against it.

Become a Vox member to continue reading.

More in Politics

Future Perfect
Future Perfect

The world’s poorest countries are paying the price for a war they didn’t start.

By Bryan Walsh
The End of HIV
The End of HIV

We have the tools to end the virus. The question is whether we’ll abandon them.

By Bryan Walsh
The Logoff
The Logoff

Gas — and lots of others things — are still getting more expensive.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
Why an 8-1 Supreme Court just ruled in favor of anti-LGBTQ+ “conversion therapy”
Politics

Sadly, the Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar is correct.

By Ian Millhiser
The Logoff
How Trump is paying TSA, briefly explained
The Logoff

Good news for your upcoming flight.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
How ICE has changed American life
Politics

Immigrant or not, Trump’s mass deportation pledges have fundamentally changed how regular people live.

By Christian Paz

Support Independent Journalism: Disable Your Adblocker


If you value Vox’s reporting and analysis, please consider allowing ads or becoming a member to support our journalism.


Continue without support

Or become a member to continue using your ad blocker uninterrupted.

Already a member? | Contact support