Skip to main content

Trump’s birthright citizenship ban may fail — but the administration already got too far

In taking up the issue at all, the court showed nativists have made major gains.

In taking up the issue at all, the court showed nativists have made major gains.

CommentsComments
STK466_ELECTION_2024_CVirginia_E
STK466_ELECTION_2024_CVirginia_E
Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge
Gaby Del Valle
is a policy reporter at The Verge covering surveillance, the Department of Homeland Security, and the tech-right.

On Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order banning birthright citizenship. Justices seemed skeptical of the administration’s argument, but by taking up birthright citizenship at all, they showed how much ground nativists have gained since Trump’s first term. The 14th Amendment is quite clear: “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.” Trump seeks to overturn this and create a new, effectively stateless American underclass, and he’s gotten alarmingly far.

Hours after being sworn back into office for his second term, Trump issued an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” Under the order, children born to undocumented mothers — or to women in the country on non-immigrant visas — would no longer be citizens upon birth, unless the children’s fathers were citizens or permanent residents. The order’s provisions would take effect 30 days after it was issued. It was immediately challenged in court and several federal injunctions prevented its implementation, meaning birthright citizenship remains the law of the land for now.

Trump’s efforts hinge on the meaning of a specific clause: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The administration contends that noncitizens and those who don’t have permanent residency are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, since they’re actually loyal to a foreign power. This interpretation would reverse not only centuries of US law but also precedent set by English common law, leaving hundreds

Subscribe to The Verge to continue reading.