Overview
On January 20, 2025, the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," directing federal agencies to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil if their mother was in the country unlawfully or only on a temporary visa and the father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. The order directly challenges more than 125 years of legal consensus, grounded in the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that nearly everyone born in the United States is a citizen at birth regardless of parental status.
The order was immediately met with a barrage of lawsuits from states, civil‑rights groups, and affected families, producing a patchwork of nationwide injunctions and appellate rulings and forcing the Supreme Court to first curb lower courts’ use of universal injunctions and now to confront the core question: can a president unilaterally narrow a constitutional guarantee by executive order? In December 2025, the Court agreed to hear Trump v. Barbara, a nationwide class action on behalf of all babies who would be denied citizenship under the order, with a ruling expected by June 2026. The case will decide the fate of birthright citizenship for millions of U.S.-born children of undocumented and temporary immigrants and will signal how far the Court’s conservative majority is willing to go in revisiting landmark precedents and expanding presidential power over immigration and constitutional rights.
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
The Trump administration’s second term is defined by a sharp turn toward expansive assertions of presidential power, especially over immigration, administrative agencies, and long‑standing constitutional interpretations.
The U.S. Supreme Court, currently with a 6–3 conservative majority, is the final arbiter of constitutional disputes, including the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
The ACLU is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and preserving individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and laws, frequently litigating high‑profile civil‑rights cases.
IRLI is a legal advocacy group aligned with immigration‑restriction organizations, filing briefs in support of stricter immigration and citizenship policies.
Timeline
-
Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump v. Barbara
Supreme CourtIn a major step, the Supreme Court grants certiorari in Trump v. Barbara, a nationwide class action challenging EO 14160, and declines for now to take a parallel state‑led case. Arguments are expected in spring 2026, with a ruling by June.
-
Supreme Court privately weighs whether to take merits of EO 14160
Supreme CourtAP reports that the Supreme Court holds a private conference to decide whether to hear Trump’s appeals of lower‑court rulings that blocked EO 14160, signaling the justices’ awareness of the case’s significance.
-
Restrictionist groups urge Supreme Court to take up case
AdvocacyThe Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and allied conservative legal foundations file briefs urging the Supreme Court to review appellate rulings against EO 14160 and to use the case to “correct” what they view as an overly broad reading of Wong Kim Ark.
-
Ninth Circuit upholds state‑led injunction; class case advances
AppealThe Ninth Circuit affirms the Washington‑led injunction against EO 14160, while Judge LaPlante’s class certification and injunction stand, setting up competing rulings that increase pressure for a definitive Supreme Court decision.
-
Judge LaPlante certifies class and blocks EO 14160 in Barbara v. Trump
Court RulingJudge Joseph LaPlante certifies a nationwide class of "born and unborn" children affected by EO 14160 and issues a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the order against the class, re‑establishing de facto nationwide protection despite Trump v. CASA.
-
ACLU files Barbara v. Trump seeking classwide relief
Legal ActionCapitalizing on the Court’s emphasis on class actions, the ACLU files Barbara v. Trump in the District of New Hampshire, seeking a nationwide classwide injunction on behalf of all children whose citizenship would be denied under EO 14160.
-
Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA
Supreme CourtIn a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court rules that lower courts may not issue nationwide injunctions against federal policies like EO 14160, but may grant broad relief to states or certified classes. The decision leaves the constitutionality of EO 14160 unresolved but prompts challengers to shift toward class actions such as Barbara v. Trump.
-
Pregnant immigrants express fear as Court prepares to weigh in
Human ImpactReuters profiles pregnant immigrants, including a Cuban asylum seeker known as Barbara, who fear their U.S.-born children could be left without citizenship if EO 14160 takes effect, illustrating the human stakes of the Supreme Court’s interventions.
-
Supreme Court takes Trump v. CASA on nationwide injunctions
Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court grants certiorari in consolidated cases involving EO 14160 (Trump v. CASA et al.), limiting its review at this stage to whether federal district courts may issue nationwide injunctions against federal policies.
-
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to limit nationwide injunctions
Legal ActionThe Justice Department files emergency applications asking the Supreme Court to stay or narrow nationwide injunctions against EO 14160, arguing lower courts exceeded their authority and misread the 14th Amendment.
-
Fourth federal judge blocks EO 14160
Court RulingJudge Leo Sorokin in Massachusetts issues a nationwide preliminary injunction in State of New Jersey v. Trump, writing that the Constitution "confers birthright citizenship broadly, including to persons within the categories described" by EO 14160.
-
Third injunction issued in New Hampshire
Court RulingJudge Joseph LaPlante in the District of New Hampshire becomes the third federal judge to block the order, in New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump, adding to the nationwide legal freeze on EO 14160.
-
Maryland judge issues nationwide injunction
Court RulingJudge Deborah Boardman in Maryland grants a nationwide preliminary injunction in CASA Inc. v. Trump, finding EO 14160 conflicts with "the plain language of the 14th Amendment" and 125 years of binding Supreme Court precedent.
-
First temporary restraining order halts EO 14160
Court RulingSenior Judge John C. Coughenour in the Western District of Washington issues a temporary restraining order calling the new birthright citizenship order "blatantly unconstitutional" and blocking its enforcement nationwide for 14 days.
-
States and advocates unleash first wave of lawsuits
Legal ActionCoalitions of Democratic‑led states and civil‑rights groups file multiple federal lawsuits, including Washington v. Trump in Washington state and State of New Jersey v. Trump in Massachusetts, arguing EO 14160 violates the 14th Amendment and federal citizenship statutes.
-
Trump signs Executive Order 14160
Executive ActionOn his first day of a second term, President Trump signs Executive Order 14160, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," directing federal agencies to deny citizenship documentation to children born in the U.S. if their mothers were unlawfully present or on temporary visas and their fathers were neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents. The order is set to apply to births at least 30 days after issuance.
-
Trump first threatens to end birthright citizenship by executive order
Public StatementIn an interview with Axios, President Trump claims he can end birthright citizenship for children of non‑citizens via executive order, surprising legal experts and drawing criticism even from Republican leaders. No such order is signed during his first term, but the idea remains a touchstone of his immigration rhetoric.
-
Supreme Court affirms birthright citizenship in Wong Kim Ark
Historical BackgroundIn United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court rules that a U.S.-born man of Chinese immigrant parents is a citizen by virtue of birth on U.S. soil, widely understood to confirm that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly all people born in the U.S., regardless of parental immigration status.
-
14th Amendment ratified, enshrining birthright citizenship
Historical BackgroundThe United States ratifies the 14th Amendment, whose Citizenship Clause declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States, overturning Dred Scott and laying the foundation for modern birthright citizenship.
Scenarios
Court Strikes Down EO 14160 and Strongly Reaffirms Birthright Citizenship
Discussed by: Many constitutional scholars, civil-rights groups, and outlets like Axios and PBS; lower courts unanimously so far
Under this scenario, a majority of justices holds that Executive Order 14160 violates the plain text of the 14th Amendment and the controlling precedent of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, as well as federal statutes codifying citizenship at birth. The Court could issue a clear, broad ruling that anyone born on U.S. soil (with narrow exceptions for diplomats and occupying forces) is a citizen, regardless of parental status, and that a president lacks authority to narrow constitutional rights by executive order. Such a decision would invalidate EO 14160, protect the citizenship of children already born under the cloud of the order, and likely deter future presidents from unilateral attempts to rewrite core constitutional guarantees. It would also leave intact existing debates over immigration enforcement without altering the meaning of the Citizenship Clause.
Narrow Defeat for EO 14160 on Statutory or Procedural Grounds
Discussed by: Some legal commentators seeking a middle path; analyses in Reuters, Axios and academic blogs
The Court could avoid a sweeping constitutional pronouncement by ruling that EO 14160 conflicts with federal statutes (such as the Immigration and Nationality Act’s codification of birthright citizenship) or exceeds delegated executive authority, without definitively resolving the full scope of the 14th Amendment. Alternatively, the justices might find flaws in the class certification, standing, or ripeness, or remand for narrower relief. This would likely strike down or severely limit the order in practice, protecting the status quo for most children, but it would leave open the possibility that Congress — or a differently structured executive action — could revisit birthright citizenship in the future. Such minimalism would fit the Court’s occasional preference for deciding cases on narrower statutory or procedural grounds even when major constitutional questions loom.
Court Upholds EO 14160 and Narrows Birthright Citizenship
Discussed by: Restrictionist legal groups like IRLI and FAIR; some originalist scholars; speculative commentary in Axios and Reuters
In the most disruptive scenario, the Court’s conservative majority accepts the administration’s originalist reading that the Citizenship Clause does not cover children of parents who are in the U.S. unlawfully or only temporarily. Relying on Trump v. Hawaii–style deference to the executive on immigration and on its recent willingness to overturn precedent (as in Dobbs), the Court could distinguish or effectively narrow Wong Kim Ark and uphold EO 14160. This would immediately strip birthright citizenship from a significant share of U.S.-born children of undocumented and temporary immigrants, create complex questions about retroactivity and statelessness, and invite Congress or future presidents to further restrict citizenship by blood or by parental status. It would represent a fundamental redefinition of American membership and likely spark intense political and legal backlash domestically and internationally.
Case Becomes Moot or Partially Moot Before a Merits Ruling
Discussed by: A minority of commentators speculating on political off-ramps
Political developments could alter the litigation’s trajectory. Trump might partially rescind or revise EO 14160 to address statutory conflicts or soften its reach, or a closely divided Congress could pass clarifying legislation codifying birthright citizenship that changes the posture of the case. Alternatively, shifts in the plaintiff class (e.g., if the order continues to be enjoined and fewer affected births occur) might narrow the issues the Court chooses to decide. In any of these scenarios, the justices could dismiss some or all questions as moot or resolve only a slice of the dispute, postponing a definitive resolution of the constitutional issue. However, given the Court’s decision to grant certiorari and the broad national stakes, many analysts believe the justices are unlikely to walk away without issuing clear guidance.
Historical Context
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
1898What Happened
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court considered whether a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were subjects of the Emperor of China but not U.S. citizens was nonetheless a U.S. citizen by birth. The Court held that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause guaranteed citizenship to almost everyone born on U.S. soil, firmly embedding jus soli (citizenship by birthplace) in American law. Modern coverage of the EO 14160 fight, including Axios and Reuters, identifies Wong Kim Ark as the cornerstone precedent the Trump administration is asking the Court to revisit or narrow.
Outcome
Short term: Wong Kim Ark was recognized as a U.S. citizen, invalidating efforts to exclude him based on his parents’ Chinese nationality and reinforcing protections for U.S.-born children of immigrants.
Long term: The decision has long been read as guaranteeing birthright citizenship to nearly all children born in the U.S., regardless of parental status, and has underpinned civil-rights understandings of the 14th Amendment for more than a century.
Why It's Relevant
Trump’s executive order is a direct attempt to test or overturn the prevailing reading of Wong Kim Ark. How the Court treats that precedent — whether it reaffirms, distinguishes, or undercuts it — will determine whether birthright citizenship remains as robust as it has been since 1898.
Trump v. Hawaii and Presidential Power Over Immigration
2017–2018What Happened
Trump v. Hawaii involved challenges to President Trump’s third iteration of a travel ban restricting entry from several predominantly Muslim countries. After lower courts blocked the proclamation as exceeding statutory authority and violating the Establishment Clause, the Supreme Court in 2018 upheld the ban in a 5–4 decision, emphasizing the president’s broad discretion under the Immigration and Nationality Act and applying a deferential form of review.
Outcome
Short term: The travel ban went into full effect, and the decision signaled the Court’s willingness to defer heavily to the executive branch on immigration and national-security justifications.
Long term: Trump v. Hawaii has become a touchstone for debates about how much deference courts owe presidents on immigration, and it foreshadows the arguments the administration now makes that courts should similarly defer to EO 14160’s reinterpretation of citizenship as part of immigration control.
Why It's Relevant
Supporters of EO 14160 cite Trump v. Hawaii as evidence that the Court will defer to broad presidential authority in immigration matters. Opponents counter that citizenship is qualitatively different from entry restrictions and is explicitly protected by constitutional text and precedent, making a Trump v. Hawaii–style ruling far less likely.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health and the Court’s Willingness to Overrule Precedent
2022What Happened
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, eliminating federal constitutional protection for abortion after nearly 50 years. The majority opinion argued that Roe and Casey were egregiously wrong and that adherence to precedent (stare decisis) should give way when prior decisions lack historical grounding. Reuters and other outlets have since highlighted Dobbs as emblematic of the Court’s readiness to discard long‑standing precedents in high‑stakes cases.
Outcome
Short term: Dobbs triggered immediate changes in state abortion laws, with many states enforcing near‑total bans and others enshrining protections, and it intensified scrutiny of the Court’s conservative majority.
Long term: The decision has reshaped expectations about the durability of Supreme Court precedents, raising questions about what other long‑settled doctrines — including birthright citizenship — might be vulnerable when challenged by a determined majority.
Why It's Relevant
Dobbs demonstrates that the current Court is willing to overturn deeply embedded constitutional interpretations when it believes they lack historical support. That history cuts both ways in Trump v. Barbara: it raises fears that the Court could narrow or repudiate Wong Kim Ark, but it also puts pressure on justices to justify any departure from more than a century of reliance on birthright citizenship.