Citizenship by Birth: U.S. Supreme Court to Decide the Future of Trump’s Executive Order

Washington (The Uttam Hindu): The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether former President Donald Trump’s executive order—aimed at ending birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States—is legally valid. The policy of granting citizenship based on birth has existed in the U.S. for more than a century.

According to reports, after taking office on January 20, Trump issued an executive order instructing federal agencies not to grant citizenship to children born after February 19 if neither parent is a U.S. citizen nor a permanent resident.

The Trump administration argues that the Constitution does not grant citizenship to children whose parents are “temporary visitors” or “undocumented migrants,” claiming such parents are not technically under the “jurisdiction” of the United States as defined by law.

Soon after the order was issued, multiple lawsuits were filed challenging it, and several federal judges temporarily blocked the policy. On June 27, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal district courts do not have the authority to impose nationwide injunctions on such matters. Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, it is preparing to give a direct ruling on the dispute.

The government maintains that children of non-U.S. citizens do not fall under U.S. “jurisdiction,” and therefore should not automatically receive citizenship by birth. Twenty-four Republican-led states and twenty-seven lawmakers have urged the Supreme Court to uphold the policy. This case is one of several controversies related to Trump’s immigration agenda that have reached the Supreme Court.

Trump signed the order on January 20, directing federal agencies to stop granting citizenship documentation to children born after February 19 if their parents are neither U.S. citizens nor permanent residents. Over twenty states and civil rights organizations immediately challenged the order in court, calling it clearly “unconstitutional.”