The Future of Birthright Citizenship: Trump v. Barbara and the 14th Amendment

For over a century, a simple principle has shaped who counts as a U.S. citizen: if you were born on U.S. soil, you are an American (subject to a very narrow set of exceptions). This is known as birthright citizenship, and it touches millions of families.

Now, that long-settled rule faces a legal challenge aimed at ending birthright citizenship as it has been understood. A 2025 executive order sought to define who qualifies for birthright citizenship; lawsuits followed, and the question ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

This article discusses the legal basis for birthright citizenship, what it means for those living in America, and what is at stake in the U.S. Supreme Court case heard in April 2026. If you need legal help with a constitutional law issue, consult an experienced constitutional law attorney who can provide essential guidance.

Where Birthright Citizenship Comes From

Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Citizenship Clause, provides the foundation for birthright citizenship: “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.”

The Citizenship Clause provides two pathways for citizenship:

1. Being born in the United States
2. Being naturalized (a legal process for immigrants)

The 14th Amendment was enacted following the Civil War and was intended to reverse the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision. This decision’s infamous ruling declared that Black people could not be citizens of the United States, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free.

Members of Congress passed a statute codifying birthright citizenship for all babies born in the United States. All babies born on U.S. soil are birthright citizens, subject to limited exceptions.

What the Citizenship Clause Means for People in the US

The clause has been interpreted only sparingly, and in those cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that all children born in the United States are U.S. citizens, regardless of whether their parents are American citizens or have legal immigration status.

The Legal Challenge To Birthright Citizenship

Birthright citizenship has come under political attack in recent years. For example, President Trump has long maintained that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee birthright citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil.

2025 Executive Order Challenging Birthright Citizenship

On the first day of his second term in 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. It barred citizenship for children born in the United States if their parents entered the country illegally or are working legally in the U.S. on temporary visas.

The executive order seeks to interpret “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Citizenship Clause to limit who qualifies as a U.S. citizen from birth. It outlines two categories of people that it says are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States:

1. A child whose mother was not lawfully present in the United States, and whose father was not a U.S. citizen (or lawful permanent resident) at the moment the child was born
2. A child whose mother was lawfully but temporarily in the United States, and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, when the child was born

The executive order directs the U.S. Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Commissioner of Social Security to ensure that their policies are consistent with the order.

In response to the executive order, immigrant rights groups and almost half of the U.S. states challenged it in court. U.S. district courts hearing the case ruled that the executive order was unconstitutional, and three Courts of Appeals refused to lift the block on those orders during the appeals process.

Legal Challenge to Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order: Trump v. Barbara

Through Executive Order 14160, the Trump administration challenged the constitutional guarantee of automatic citizenship to all babies born in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether this executive order is constitutional.

On April 1, 2026, the Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara. The legal question in this birthright citizenship case is whether the executive order complies with the Citizenship Clause and with 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies it.

Why Wong Kim Ark Matters in the Trump v. Barbara Case

Both parties argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that one of its prior cases on the Citizenship Clause, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), supported their arguments and that the Court should follow that precedent and rule in their favor.

Wong Kim Ark is about the citizenship of a man born in the United States to parents who had emigrated from China. His parents lived in San Francisco for more than twenty years, during which time Wong Kim Ark was born.

His parents were lawfully residing in the United States but were ineligible to naturalize under existing law. In 1890, his parents returned to China. Several years later, Wong Kim visited his parents in China and then returned to the United States. Upon his return, he was barred from entering the country.

Wong Kim Ark argued that he was a birthright citizen because he was born on U.S. soil, even though his parents were not citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed. The Court ruled that the Citizenship Clause meant that Wong Kim Ark was a birthright citizen, even though his parents were not citizens and were ineligible to become citizens at the time of his birth.

This has been a stable rule. A child born on U.S. soil is an American citizen, subject to narrow exceptions, such as the children of foreign diplomats, who are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Main Arguments in Trump v. Barbara

The U.S. Supreme Court Justices considered two competing views of the same constitutional text. Here is a look at each side’s arguments, which are also supported by amicus briefs from groups that have an interest in the case.

The Case for Limiting Birthright Citizenship

Those defending the executive order (the Petitioners) argue the following:

• “Subject to the jurisdiction” has a narrower meaning. They contend the phrase requires more than simply being born on U.S. soil. They argue that the Clause was meant to exclude people who owe allegiance to another country. These arguments rely on domicile having a subjective-intent element — a person’s mindset regarding whether they intend to remain in the United States.
• The framers of the U.S. Constitution and Amendments had specific intent. They argue that the amendment was written primarily to secure citizenship for freed slaves. They do not believe that the Fourteenth Amendment protects every child born to people without lawful status, i.e., illegal aliens.
• The executive can clarify the rule. They assert that the executive order provides a permissible interpretation rather than rewriting the Constitution.

The Petitioners agree that the holding in Wong Kim Ark would govern the case. The Solicitor General requested a constitutional ruling from the Court.

The Case for Protecting Birthright Citizenship.

Those challenging the order, the Respondents (the plaintiffs in the lawsuit), argue the following:

• The text is broad and clear. Nearly everyone born in the United States is “subject to the jurisdiction” of its laws, since they must obey those laws and be prosecuted under them.
• Precedent strongly supports their position. Wong Kim Ark and more than a century of practice confirm that parental immigration status, whether that be noncitizens, undocumented immigrants, or otherwise, does not change a child’s birthright citizenship.
• Only a constitutional amendment could change the rule. The Respondents argue that an executive order cannot override the plain meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Respondents ask the court to reaffirm its decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Native American Birthright Citizenship

The question of Native American birthright has a distinct constitutional history. In Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court held that enrolled members of Indian Tribes were not automatically citizens at birth.

The Court based its decision on the fact that, at the time, Native Americans were understood to owe allegiance to tribal sovereigns. It was believed that they were not subject to U.S. political jurisdiction under the Citizenship Clause. Congress later changed the rule, making Native Americans born in the United States citizens, regardless of tribal enrollment.

In Trump v. Barbara, the Petitioners cite Elk. They argue that the Citizenship Clause has limits tied to “direct and immediate allegiance.” On the other hand, the Respondents argue that Elk reflects only a narrow, historically closed set of exceptions rather than a broad power to restrict citizenship more generally.

Issues in Play for the Court’s Holding

Both the Petitioners and the Respondents focus on the same five words, but each reaches the opposite conclusion about whom they include.

During oral arguments, Justice Kavanaugh noted that the Court sometimes applies a rule of constitutional avoidance, deciding cases on statutory grounds to avoid constitutional holdings where possible. So it may be possible that the U.S. Supreme Court avoids the constitutional issue and rules on other available grounds.

When Will We Know the Outcome of Trump v. Barbara?

The decision is expected by late June or early July 2026, when the U.S. Supreme Court releases the majority of its final decisions for the term.

Get Help Understanding Constitutional Law

Birthright citizenship rests on the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise that American citizenship is given to all persons born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction. For more than a century, since United States v. Wong Kim Ark, most U.S.-born children have had a clear path to U.S. citizenship.

Trump’s Executive Order and the resulting case, Trump v. Barbara, ask the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether birthright citizenship can be narrowed without an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If you need legal help, a constitutional law attorney can provide essential guidance.