SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
14th amendment
SCOTUS’ Ruling Spares Birthright Citizenship For Now, But the Battle Is Far From Over
While birthright citizenship survived today, this ruling exposes how fragile its guarantee has become. This fight is far from over—Republicans will try again, and next time they might succeed.
Jun 30, 2026
On June 30, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship.
This is the obviously correct decision. The 14th Amendment is abundantly clear: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
The Trump administration’s argument that undocumented immigrants and their children are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was baseless from the start. Not only did it lack any foundation in the Constitution or statutory law, but the meaning of that phrase was never in dispute. Those “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” include everyone born in the US except the children of foreign diplomats, enemy invaders during a hostile occupation, and those born in unincorporated territories of American Samoa (they are considered “noncitizen nationals”).
After several disastrous Supreme Court rulings on Temporary Protected Status (TPS), asylum entries, transgender athletes, campaign finance restrictions, and presidential firing power, it may be tempting to see this decision on birthright as a glimmer of hope. Unfortunately, there are reasons to be concerned.
The Supreme Court is effectively one vote away from fundamentally changing who is entitled to US citizenship and what it means to be an American.
While six justices found Trump’s executive order to be unlawful, only five justices—John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amy Coney Barrett—believe that it violates the Constitution.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh argues that it only violates federal law. He writes: “In my view, the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does contravene a federal statute, 8 U.S.C. §1401(a). Congress could—consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.”
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch argues that the 14th Amendment clearly does not extend to children of temporary visitors. Yet, he “harbor doubts” whether the same is true for children of undocumented immigrants “who have long chosen to make this Nation their permanent home.”
The issue of a “permanent home” (or “domicile”) was a core component of Trump’s anti-birthright argument. The Trump administration argued that to be “completely subject” to the “jurisdiction” of the US means one must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” and receive “protection” from it. The children of US citizens, permanent residents, and formerly enslaved persons meet this standard because they “have a permanent domicile.” By contrast, the children of undocumented immigrants “do not owe primary allegiance to the United States by virtue of domicile, for illegal aliens lack the legal capacity to establish domicile here.”
Before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the Trump administration’s “point [is] that allegiance is what the word jurisdiction means.” He further contended that, “For aliens, lawful domicile is the status that creates the requisite allegiance and the text of the [Citizenship] Clause presupposes domicile.”
Notably, Gorsuch does not explicitly reject this argument. What’s more, he, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, believes that the Citizenship Clause does not immediately extend to everyone born on US soil. It requires, as the Trump administration argues, possessing a “permanent domicile.”
Justice Samuel Alito likewise concurs with the Trump administration’s argument but emphasizes the allegiance component. In his view, “the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.” Being born in the US is not enough.
Where this leaves us is at a far more precarious crossroads. Only five justices believe that the plain text of the 14th Amendment automatically guarantees citizenship to everyone born in the US.
Kavanaugh believes that Congress could limit birthright citizenship themselves. A constitutional amendment would not be needed.
The same is arguably true for Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito. If Congress were to pass legislation that codifies Trump’s Executive Order and formally defines “domicile” status in a way that excludes undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors, then those four justices would likely uphold it.
Ultimately, the problem is that this decision does not settle the issue once and for all. What we needed was a clear 7-2 decision (Thomas and Alito were always going to dissent). One that acknowledged what the Constitution plainly says and what it obviously grants—namely, that if you are born here, you are from here. Nothing else matters; not “domicile” or “allegiance.”
As things stand, however, the Supreme Court is effectively one vote away from fundamentally changing who is entitled to US citizenship and what it means to be an American. While birthright citizenship survived today, this ruling exposes how fragile its guarantee has become. This fight is far from over—Republicans will try again, and next time they might succeed.
We cannot let this happen. Now more than ever we need a left-wing wall in Congress to stop Trump’s assault on our rights, protect birthright citizenship, and defend the Constitution.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Blocking Trump Birthright Citizen Attack a 'Real Relief,' But Also 'Bare Minimum'
"Birthright citizenship is protected today. But the workers whose children depend on it still face deportation, worksite raids, and an administration that has made clear it will use every tool available to make immigrant workers afraid, isolated, and stripped of their rights," said one campaigner.
Jun 30, 2026
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump's executive order that sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented parents, preserving 150 years of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment and dealing a major blow to the administration's xenophobic agenda.
"Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and are citizens at birth under the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause," the high court held in Trump v. Barbara.
The 6-3 decision roundly rejected an executive order issued by Trump on the first day of his second term that sought to deny US citizenship for babies born in the United States to parents who are either unlawfully in the United States or legally living in the country on temporary visas.
Every lower court rejected the order. Just three days after its issuance, US District Judge John Coughenour, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, blasted it as "blatantly unconstitutional."
A majority of the right-wing Supreme Court agreed.
"Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to 'every free-born person in this land,'" Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. "We keep that promise today."
Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing a separate concurring opinion agreeing that Trump's executive order was unlawful but basing his reasoning on federal immigration law rather than the 14th Amendment.
"As revealed by the court’s opinion with its detailed account of history and precedent, and by the weighty and thoughtful dissents, the constitutional issue is far more complicated than the statutory issue," Kavanaugh wrote.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
"This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the court, and in my judgment, the court has made a serious mistake," Alito wrote in his dissent. "As interpreted by the court today, the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of 'birth tourists,' women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home."
Alito further argued that the 14th Amendment "confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country."
In a 91-page dissent more than three times longer than Roberts' opinion, Thomas wrote that "the court adds to the sad history of the 14th Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed Blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.”
Trump took to his Truth Social network to lament, "The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process."
"No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary!" he added. "Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!"
Stephen Miller, Trump's xenophobic deputy chief of staff, seethed on X that Trump v. Barbara is "one of the most destructive and outrageous decisions in the long history of the Supreme Court."
"American citizenship is not the birthright of the world," the white nationalist added. "It belongs only and solely to Americans. No provision of the Constitution can be read to require our national self-obliteration."
Defenders of birthright citizenship and the Constitution welcomed the ruling.
"The Supreme Court affirmed what we know in our hearts and in our communities: The 14th Amendment extends the promise of citizenship to everyone born in the US Immigrants belong," Congresswoman Delia C. Ramirez (D-Ill.), a birthright citizen, said on Bluesky. "No one can deny that immigrants today are also the inheritors of the promise of America—just like so many of my colleagues' ancestors were."
I am the proud, defiant daughter of Maria Elvira Ramirez Guerra, a Guatemalan immigrant who crossed the border pregnant with me. Regardless of what some of my colleagues might call me, I am a citizen by birthright and an AMERICAN!
[image or embed]
— Congresswoman Delia C. Ramirez (@ramirez.house.gov) June 30, 2026 at 8:58 AM
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), a former refugee from Somalia, said on social media: "The Supreme Court just upheld birthright citizenship, blocking Trump's attempt to dismantle the 14th Amendment and strip away a constitutional guarantee. If you were born here, you are an American citizen. The Constitution is clear. No one can change that."
American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick called the decision "the easiest of layups possible."
Thomas Wolf, director of democracy initiatives at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, said that "the court could not have defensibly ruled any differently."
"The 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship to everyone born here over 150 years ago," he added. "The Supreme Court affirmed that 20 years later in Wong Kim Ark."
ACLU national legal director Cecilia Wang, a birthright citizen who argued the case before the Supreme Court, said the decision "reaffirms a fundamental American promise—if you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
Neidi Dominguez, executive director of the multiracial advocacy group Organized Power in Numbers, said that "today the Supreme Court reaffirmed a constitutional right that should never have been in question."
"Birthright citizenship was guaranteed through the passage of the 14th Amendment after the Civil War, when formerly enslaved Africans and their allies fought to access equal rights and affirm that children born in the United States have citizenship regardless of where their parents come from," she noted. "That right survives today."
"But let us be clear about what happened here," Dominguez continued. "The Trump administration tried to narrow the definition of citizenship and the access to the rights that come with it, and even this Supreme Court disagreed. This is a real relief, and it is welcome. It is also the bare minimum."
"The same court that today defended birthright citizenship last week stripped legal protections from more than 350,000 Haitian and Syrian workers with [temporary protected status] and opened the door to doing the same to up to 1.3 million people," she said. "Earlier this term, it cleared the way for mass layoffs of tens of thousands of federal workers. Working people are not safe because one constitutional right survived. They are fighting on every front."
"Birthright citizenship is protected today. But the workers whose children depend on it still face deportation, worksite raids, and an administration that has made clear it will use every tool available to make immigrant workers afraid, isolated, and stripped of their rights," Dominguez added. "Employers cannot stay silent while the workers they depend on are stripped of their rights one ruling at a time. We are not done fighting."
Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of the pro-democracy group Common Cause, issued a statement saying, “While we welcome the court finally upholding a constitutional amendment ratified nearly two centuries ago, upholding the law is no cause for celebration, it is a requirement."
“Let today be a stark reminder that this court continues to systematically dismantle voting protections for Black and brown communities, tilting the scales of justice toward a dark era where a wealthy, privileged few dictate the rules for the rest of us," she added. "Today may be a brief victory for the rule of law, but our fight to protect our multiracial democracy continues.”
Wolf at the Brennan Center said that “today’s ruling is the right one amid an avalanche of Supreme Court opinions undermining our democracy."
“In just the past few weeks alone, the court further undermined the Voting Rights Act, encouraged more aggressive partisan gerrymandering, dangerously expanded presidential power over federal agencies, and further depleted protections for immigrants," he noted. "This ruling does not make up for all the damage the court has done this term.”
On Tuesday, the court also ruled that states may ban transgender girls from participating in sports at schools receiving public funding.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The 14th Amendment Is 160 Years Old Today—And We Are in Serious Trouble
From the courageous radicalism of Thaddeus Stevens to the tragic depths Donald Trump has brought us, our nation has become horribly lost on what it means to be a citizen and why this democratic republican was created in the first.
May 06, 2026
On May 6, 1866, exactly one hundred and sixty years ago today, Thaddeus Stevens, US Congressman from Pennsylvania and the leading Radical Republican in the House of Representatives, rose to introduce the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution on the floor of the. Stevens, chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, was also co-chair of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction set up by Congress, in late 1865, to promote a radical Reconstruction, a program advanced over the consistent objections of President Andrew Johnson.
Here is how Stevens introduced the Amendment:
Congress tasked the committee with reconstructing the nation and setting new constitutional baselines for post-Civil War America; this is difficult work; above all, we are trying to write the Declaration of Independence’s promise of freedom and equality into the Constitution. But I beg gentlemen to consider the magnitude of the task which was imposed upon the committee. They were expected to suggest a plan for rebuilding a shattered nation—a nation which though not dissevered was yet shaken and riven by the gigantic and persistent efforts of six million able and ardent men; of bitter rebels striving through four years of bloody war. It cannot be denied that this terrible struggle sprang from the vicious principles incorporated into the institutions of our country. Our fathers had been compelled to postpone the principles of their great Declaration, and wait for the full establishment till a more propitious time. That time ought to be present now. But the public mind has been educated in error for a century. How difficult in a day to unlearn it. In rebuilding, it is necessary to clear away the rotten and defective portions of the old foundations, and to sink deep and found the repaired edifice upon the firm foundation of eternal justice. If, perchance, the accumulated quicksands render it impossible to reach in every part so firm a basis, then it becomes our duty to drive deep and solid the substituted piles on which to build. It would not be wise to prevent the raising of the structure because some corner of it might be founded upon materials subject to the inevitable laws of mortal decay. It were better to shelter the household and trust to the advancing progress of a higher morality and a purer and more intelligent principle to underpin the defective corner.
The Amendment passed in the House on June 13, by a vote of 138 in favor and 36 opposed, having passed in the Senate five days earlier, on June 8, by a vote of 33 in favor and 11 opposed. In other words, roughly a quarter of US Representatives and Senators, serving in houses of Congress that did not include representatives from the seceded Confederate states, voted against the amendment.
It is tempting to imagine that the establishment of egalitarian citizenship in the aftermath of a bloody Civil War fought in its name proceeded as a matter of course. But it did not. It was bitterly contested, by everyone aligned with the Confederacy, but also by many Northern Democrats, who rallied behind Andrew Johnson’s efforts to quickly reincorporate the eleven defeated Southern states without substantially empowering emancipated formerly enslaved people or enforcing any form of retributive justice. And it is been bitterly contested ever since.
Stevens and his Radical Republican allies in Congress understood the strength of the opposition to their vision of a multi-racial and non-racist democracy, and they fought a decade-long battle on its behalf, centered on both enforceable legal and civic equality and land reform designed to empower formerly-enslaved agricultural laborers. They succeeded in many ways, passing numerous bills designed to support the civil rights and economic opportunities of emancipated Blacks, and securing passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. Yet the gains were short-lived, betrayed by the infamous Compromise of 1877 that placed Republican Rutherford Hayes in the White House and ending the final remnants of the Union’s military occupation of the South, leading in short order to the reinstitution of Black subordination via the new Jim Crow system of racial segregation and extortionate share-cropping. (While there have been many fine histories of this period, to my mind the best is Eric Foner’s award-winning Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877.)
The Fourteenth Amendment was the cornerstone of the effort to truly reconstruct the postwar nation on the foundations of non-racial citizenship. In the words of historian T.J. Stiles, it was “The Constitutional Amendment That Reinvented Freedom”: “It established birthright citizenship, required ‘due process’ and ‘equal protection’ of the law for everyone, and put the federal government in the business of policing liberty. It removed race and ethnicity from the legal definition of American identity.”
Stevens was one of the principal legislative proponents of the Amendment. And, as President Johnson consistently sought to obstruct such efforts, he was one of the ring leaders of the 1868 effort to impeach Johnson. Indeed, he succeeded in this effort—Johnson was famously impeached by the House on February 24, 1868, by a vote of 126-47-- though Johnson was eventually acquitted in the Senate by the narrow margin of 35-19, one short of the 2/3 majority necessary to convict.
As Bruce Levine notes in his terrific 2021 political biography, Thaddeus Stevens: Civil War Revolutionary, Fighter for Racial Justice, Stevens was reviled and calumnied by opponents of Reconstruction, both in his lifetime and long into the 20th century. William A. Dunning, the dean of “Lost Cause” historians, described Stevens in 1907 as “truculent, vindictive, and cynical.” Writing in 1931, James Truslow Adams called Stevens “the most despicable, malevolent and morally deformed character who has ever risen to power in America.” James G, Randall, writing in his influential 1937 The Civil War and Reconstruction, similarly described him as “filled with ‘vindictive ugliness, unfairness, intolerance, and hatefulness,’” a view carried over into the 1969 edition of the book, co-edited with David Donald, the textbook assigned in the Civil War class I took at Queens College in 1976. The most enduring image of Stevens was produced not in a book but in a film, D.W. Griffith’s 1915 “Birth of a Nation,” one of whose chief protagonists, Austin Stoneman—an ugly, club-footed, lecherous hypocrite—was clearly modeled on Stevens.
Woodrow Wilson was only slightly less harsh, writing on “The Reconstruction of the Southern States” in The Atlantic in 1901: “He had no timidity, no scruples about keeping to constitutional lines of policy, no regard or thought for the sensibilities of the minority, — being rough-hewn and without embarrassing sensibilities himself, — an ideal radical for the service of the moment.”
It is true that Stevens seemed to have little timidity, and appears to have been something of a pit bull in his refusal to let the cause of Reconstruction go. It is also true that he had “no scruples about keeping to constitutional lines of policy,” but only in this sense: he sought, with his colleagues, to revolutionize the “constitutional lines of policy” that had already been decimated by a Civil War, and to use the Constitution’s own Article V process to amend the Constitution. Stevens was a constitutional revolutionary—the point of Levine’s brilliant book--and thus “an ideal radical for the service of the moment.”
Like everything about the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment was hardly self-enforcing. This was understood by its drafters, which is why they included the language of Section 5: “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article” (both the Thirteen and the Fifteenth Amendments contain similar language). Every aspect of the Amendment remained hotly contested for a century after its passage. But in the 1960’s, after decades of intense struggle by a civil rights movement that faced daily attacks on life and limb, Congress finally passed two pieces of legislation designed to enforce the 14th and the 15th Amendments—the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like the above-mentioned amendments, these landmark pieces of legislation faced strong opposition, and did not pass without legislative battle. The first passed in the House by a vote of 290-130 and in the Senate by a vote of 73-27; the second passed the House by a vote of 328-74 and the Senate by a vote of 79-18. And as is well known, the passage of these laws helped to generate a powerful backlash against any form of racial liberalism.
That said, both the basic intent behind the acts, and the federal bureaucracies established to enforce them, became more or less settled features of US law for the past half-century—until now.
To be fair, the Voting Rights Act has been besieged ever since the Supreme Court’s 2013 Shelby v. Holder decision. The Court’s 6-3 decision this week in Louisiana v. Callais further eviscerated the Act.
At the same time, we are currently witnessing a wholesale assault on the 14th Amendment, and the entire legal system established to enforce it, by the Trump administration. The examples are loud and clear: the outright attack on birthright citizenship, which is currently before the Court; the obvious suspension of due process by the DHS-ICE regime of arrest, detention, and deportation that in the past year has swept up well over 500,000 Americans; and the use of the Justice Department—first established in 1870 to oversee the rule of law in the formerly-Confederate states—to threaten and punish “political enemies.”
Perhaps nothing better symbolizes this Trumpist rejection of the 14th Amendment than the second Trump presidency itself. We should not forget that very powerful arguments were advanced, by numerous reputable conservative legal scholars, including J. Michael Luttig, to justify keeping Trump off several state ballots in 2024, on the grounds that his incitement of the January 6, 2021 insurrection violated the 14th Amendment’s Section 3. In spite of these arguments, the Supreme Court ruled against such moves in March 2024, holding that only Congress could attempt such a maneuver. Trump, his candidacy bolstered, went on to win the 2024 election, and then proceeded, on day one of his second term, to pardon or commute the sentences of every one of the over 1200 people who had been convicted of crimes on for their role in the January 6 insurrection.
Under Trump 20.0, even the barest lip service to the notion of equal justice under the law has been abandoned with contempt.
It is a sad irony of history that this is all happening as the nation prepares to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, and that Trump goes about the task of destroying constitutional democracy even as he makes extravagant plans to celebrate “America 250.”
And it is simply sad, and outrageous, that 160 years after Thaddeus Stevens announced the intention “to write the Declaration of Independence’s promise of freedom and equality into the Constitution,” Donald Trump is doing his best to trample on the Declaration, the Constitution, and the very idea of liberal democracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Observers See Trump Birthright Citizenship Order on Thin Ice After Skeptical Reception
The majority of Supreme Court justices expressed "profound skepticism toward the government’s revisionist history of the 14th Amendment, with most sounding downright hostile," wrote one legal reporter.
Apr 01, 2026
Some legal experts who listened to oral arguments at the US Supreme Court on Wednesday came away with the impression that a majority of justices were skeptical of President Donald Trump's executive order that unilaterally reinterprets the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
During the hearing, many observers noted that some conservative justices—including John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett—all asked pointed questions of US Solicitor General John Sauer, who was presenting the case in defense of the Trump executive order that declared an end to birthright citizenship in the country, despite more than a century of legal precedent.
After listening to the arguments, Georgetown University Law Center professor Steve Vladeck predicted that the final verdict would be "7-2 to block the executive order," and maybe even an 8-1 vote.
"This wasn't (and won't be) close," said Vladeck.
Cornell Law School professor Michael C. Dorf shared Vladeck's view that a clear majority of the court would likely vote to strike down the Trump order, but he cautioned that it could give the court cover to issue less extreme rulings that would nonetheless erode Americans' rights.
"Don't get me wrong: I'm relieved that this case is shaping up as either 8-1 or 7-2 against the Trump executive order," Dorf explained. "But the case is a gift to the Supreme Court. By rejecting an outlandish position, it will earn credibility as apolitical, even as the Overton window moves far to the right."
Elie Mystal, justice correspondent at The Nation, said after watching the hearings that he simply could not imagine a majority of the court ruling in Trump's favor.
"What I don't think is a possibility is 5-4 Trump wins," he wrote. "We have [Amy Coney Barrett]. We have Roberts. We almost certainly have Gorsuch (possibly as a concurrence). I CANNOT count to five on a Trump win here. So... good. I mean, terrible that it's gotten his far. But good."
Author and former CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin wasn't ready to make a full prediction on the outcome of the case, but he did note that "the birthright citizenship argument is going poorly for the Trump Administration."
Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern found that the Supreme Court hearing "quickly shaped up to be a blowout against the administration," with seven justices expressing "profound skepticism toward the government’s revisionist history of the 14th Amendment, with most sounding downright hostile toward the pseudo-originalist theory cooked up to legitimize the policy."
In fact, Stern thought that the administration's arguments before the court were so unconvincing that he found it "alarming" that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito appeared convinced by its rationales.
All the same, he predicted that Trump's birthright citizenship order "is about to go down in flames."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Accused of ‘Intimidation Tactic’ for Attending Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Hearing in Person
In an unprecedented move, Trump arrived at the court after accusing conservative justices of being "disloyal" for ruling against him in previous cases.
Apr 01, 2026
President Donald Trump is being accused of trying to "intimidate" the US Supreme Court as it hears oral arguments on his attempt to kill birthright citizenship.
Trump broke nearly 250 years of precedent as he arrived at the high court on Wednesday morning to personally observe the proceedings, which no sitting president has done.
As Kathryn Watson, a reporter for CBS News, explained, historically, "presidents have avoided attendance in part to honor the separation of powers."
Trump was in attendance as the justices—three of whom he appointed—mulled what could be their most consequential decision in decades: whether to uphold an executive order that would strip away a fundamental guarantee of citizenship enshrined in the US Constitution.
Making it all the more unnerving were the president's comments about the high court on Tuesday night in the Oval Office after letting reporters know he was "going" to keep tabs on Wednesday's proceedings.
He specifically zeroed in on the Republican-leaning justices, describing those he appointed as “disloyal” for ruling against him in previous cases. While describing the liberal justices as rank partisans, who’ll vote against him no matter what, he said the conservatives were “very different.”
"They want to show how honorable they are, so a man can appoint them, and they can rule against him and be so proud of it," Trump said.
"Some people would call it stupidity," Trump went on. "Some people would call it disloyal."
The court is expected to rule this summer on the legality of Trump’s executive order declaring that the children born to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas would no longer automatically become US citizens.
A lower court has already ruled against Trump's order, declaring it in violation of the 14th Amendment, which was passed following the Civil War and plainly states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
The Supreme Court will now hear arguments from the Trump administration seeking to undo that fundamental understanding, including ones advanced over a century ago by a former Confederate officer who also helped to establish the “separate but equal” doctrine that legalized racial segregation for over half a century.
If the court votes to uphold Trump's executive order, hundreds of thousands of American citizens could become effectively stateless.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said it could also throw the citizenship of tens of millions more into doubt, as it would effectively require people with legal birth certificates to "prove" their parents' legal status.
Trump's effort to strip millions of people of their citizenship comes as his Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has pushed to ultimately deport "100 million people" from the country—a number that far exceeds the population of undocumented immigrants in the US.
DaMareo Cooper explained on Tuesday for Common Dreams that the Supreme Court's decision will determine "whether a president can rewrite one of the clearest promises embedded in American law":
If the court strikes down birthright citizenship, it would let the government decide who counts as American based on the circumstances of their birth.
The 14th Amendment’s authors understood the danger of that approach.
Once citizenship becomes conditional, every other right soon follows. Ending birthright citizenship would affect everyone—not just children of immigrants—in a system that has long questioned the belonging of people of color, including Black Americans.
Allowing the Trump administration to determine who counts as a citizen takes on even more weight in light of another likely unconstitutional executive order signed by the president on Tuesday, requiring DHS to create a "citizenship list" to determine who is allowed to vote in the 2026 election.
Given these extraordinary stakes, many observers fear that Trump’s appearance before the Supreme Court's deliberations on Wednesday is designed to send a message to the justices he's accused of being "disloyal."
Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat called Trump's arrival at the high court an “intimidation tactic to remind judges of the costs of defying him.”
Josh Sorbe, a spokesperson for the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, said, "The separation of powers is pure fiction at this point."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Constitution Is Not a Suggestion': Supreme Court Told to Protect Birthright Citizenship
One critic warned that upholding President Donald Trump’s executive order “would create a permanent underclass of people born in the country but cut off from the rights that citizenship provides.”
Apr 01, 2026
As the US Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments Wednesday regarding President Donald Trump's executive order revoking birthright citizenship, several legal experts, advocacy groups, and commentators warned about the dire consequences that would come from not striking it down.
Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, published an analysis on Monday explaining that, in an ideal world, the Supreme Court wouldn't even be entertaining arguments for upholding Trump's order because it so obviously violates the plain text of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment.
"Birthright citizenship is in the Constitution," wrote Waldman. "This has been the law for more than 150 years. The amendment overturned the notorious Dred Scott decision, which said that even free Black Americans could not be US citizens. The Supreme Court in 1898 confirmed the 14th Amendment’s plain meaning. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, it ruled that children born here are citizens, even if their parents are not."
Waldman argued that "Donald Trump tried to Sharpie this out of the Constitution" with his executive order, but insisted that the 14th Amendment is "open and shut," making it easy for the Supreme Court to rule against the president.
The New York Times' Jamelle Bouie echoed Waldman's arguments in a Wednesday column, writing that "there are few lines in the Constitution that are as straightforward as the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment," whose "explicit aim... was to settle the question of American citizenship for good."
Bouie also dissected assorted arguments made by right-wing legal scholars in support of Trump's executive order, finding that they fail to offer "any new evidence regarding the drafting of the 14th Amendment, the intent of its framers, or the public meaning as understood at ratification."
"The evidence in favor of the traditional view of the citizenship clause is overwhelming," Bouie added. "To rule otherwise is to say, in essence, that two plus two equals five."
Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause, argued that the Supreme Court must strike down Trump's order because "the Constitution is not a suggestion, and its guarantees do not shift with the political winds of any one president."
"When the courts allow one president to change the definition of American citizenship with a stroke of a pen, it puts every American citizen at risk," Solomón added. "The Supreme Court must reject these unconstitutional overreaches before they cause irreversible harm to our families and our nation’s future."
Garrett Epps, legal affairs editor at Washington Monthly, warned that failing to uphold the 14th Amendment would create "an exploitable non-citizen class" who would live in the country without any constitutional rights or protections.
Picking apart Trump aide Stephen Miller's remarks about denying citizenship to children of a "foreign labor class," Epps argued that the real goal of the Trump administration's attack on the 14th Amendment isn't strictly mass deportations, but the elimination of rights to an entire group of US-based workers.
"As a practical matter," explained Epps, "reinstating a hereditary, lifelong, inferior status—which, after all, is what removing 'full political rights, including welfare and the right to vote' would mean—recreates the conditions for the growth of a racialized slave economy."
TV host and activist Padma Lakshmi, writing in a Wednesday New York Times column, also pointed to the horrific impact that eliminating birthright citizenship would have on families across the country.
"If the Supreme Court doesn't block this executive order, it would create a mess of legal and logistical consequences," Lakshmi argued. "Confusion would replace certainty, opening the door to discrimination and a patchwork of rules governing noncitizens’ access to our society. Hundreds of thousands of children born in the United States would be thrown into legal limbo every year."
The end result, Lakshmi said, "would create a permanent underclass of people born in the country but cut off from the rights that citizenship provides."
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Nation's Sacred Promise Is Now Before the US Supreme Court
We shouldn’t be debating this right now. But since the president chose to act with such striking disregard for the law, here we are.
Apr 01, 2026
The US Supreme Court today will hear a major constitutional case about birthright citizenship. We shouldn’t be debating this right now. But since the president chose to act with such striking disregard for the law, here we are.
Birthright citizenship is in the Constitution. The first sentence of the 14th Amendment reads, “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.”
This has been the law for more than 150 years. The amendment overturned the notorious Dred Scott decision, which said that even free Black Americans could not be U.S. citizens. The Supreme Court in 1898 confirmed the 14th Amendment’s plain meaning. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, it ruled that children born here are citizens, even if their parents are not. That principle gave rise to generations of new Americans.
Donald Trump tried to Sharpie this out of the Constitution. A few hours after he took office, he signed an executive order purporting to deny citizenship to the children born here to non-U.S. citizens. Courts immediately ruled against the White House. Last summer, the Supreme Court stopped individual judges from issuing such nationwide orders, but it left open the possibility of class action lawsuits. Hence Trump v. Barbara, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.
This is open and shut. Con law for dummies.
Grasping for arguments, Trump’s lawyers landed on this: The 14th Amendment’s “one pervading purpose” was to protect the children of former slaves, not anyone else. That reading puts aside the clear language of the amendment, along with a century and a half of history and tradition. It’s historical fan fiction, designed to appeal to an “originalist” Court.
Historians Martha Jones and Kate Masur, a member of the Brennan Center’s Historians Council, corrected the record in a key amicus brief. “When the Framers wrote birthright citizenship into the Constitution, they were not addressing only the status of former slaves,” they explained. “They were also remedying the eight decades of injustice imposed upon free people born in the United States, among them free Black Americans, including those who had never been enslaved.” What’s more, the historians note, “The Framers well understood that the Amendment’s broad terms would recognize and protect the citizenship status of the children of immigrants.”
One echo throughout history: We’ve seen the arguments against birthright citizenship before, and they were born of nativism and made by racists. In our Countering Originalism handbook, we call this a “negative precedent.” “Negative,” as in “really ugly.”
Our constitutional rights in 2026 should not just have to rely on the goings-on during the 1860s, when the amendment was drafted. For 150 years, hundreds of thousands of children born in the United States to noncitizen parents have proudly grown up as American citizens.
It’s an open-and-shut case, as I said. So why is this case happening at all?
Because Trump is forcing the issue. And the case offers a depressing window into how the Supreme Court helps drive, ratify, and legitimize extremist arguments. It has fired up an originalist-industrial complex to concoct historical evidence to buttress unjustifiable outcomes.
Trump didn’t dare do this during his first term. But after his “shock and awe” barrage of executive orders at the start of his second term, conservative scholars suddenly had to find it plausible, intriguing, worth a second look. Two top professors, Randy Barnett and Ilan Wurman, suddenly discovered a “puzzle” to solve. “Trump might have a case on birthright citizenship,” they found a way to write.
“A lot of people, when Trump first started talking about it, thought this is crazy,” conservative scholar John Yoo told The New York Times. Yoo thought Barnett and Wurman’s argument too, ahem, tortured, and instead made “the originalist case for birthright citizenship.” The vast majority of scholars agree.
I think the Court is highly likely to reaffirm birthright citizenship. But who knows? I thought it likely the Court would allow criminal prosecutions of former presidents, which is similarly anticipated in the Constitution. Here, the case is even clearer, since the law has affected the lives of so many people before now.
The willingness to chuck aside precedent as well as logic is a hallmark of the Roberts Court. This term, we brace for a demolition of the Voting Rights Act, a further grant of vast power to presidents (this time allowing them to command expert federal agencies that were made independent by Congress), and another ruling to undermine campaign finance rules. The Court stood up to block the unilateral imposition of tariffs and has shown some backbone on other emergency powers cases. But overall, bit by bit, it continues its project to remake the country.
As for birthright citizenship, it is one of the crown jewels of the U.S. Constitution. For a century and a half, the nation’s promise was that anyone born here, however humble their circumstances, is an American. Let’s hope the Court upholds that cherished principle. And let’s shake our heads at the fact that it has to.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Birthright Citizenship Is a Promise We Cannot Break
Defending birthright citizenship is not only about protecting children of immigrants. It is about preserving a constitutional framework that recognizes our shared humanity and limits the government’s ability to decide whose rights matter.
Mar 31, 2026
For more than 150 years, the 14th Amendment has been an uncompromising line: If you are born on US soil, you are a citizen. That principle is so foundational, many of us take it for granted.
But that principle is under attack.
On April 1, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments challenging President Donald Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship. At the center of the case is an executive order issued on the first day of Trump’s second term to end Birthright Citizenship for children of undocumented parents.
The justices will now decide whether a president can rewrite one of the clearest promises embedded in American law.
If the court strikes down birthright citizenship, it would let the government decide who counts as American based on the circumstances of their birth.
On the surface, threatening the rights of children born in the United States might seem like an immigration debate. But history tells a different story.
Birthright citizenship was never an abstract ideal. It was a response to America’s long history of dehumanization—a past that Trump and his MAGA allies are now openly trying to resurrect. The 14th Amendment was designed to dismantle a system that denied Black people a political voice, treated us as property, and denied our humanity.
Ratified in 1868, the amendment overturned Dred Scott v. Sandford, which declared that Black people “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” Birthright citizenship was meant to be simple and permanent so no government could take it away based on race, ancestry, or political whim.
For formerly enslaved people and their descendants, it guaranteed recognition as full citizens in their own country. But the 14th Amendment did more than correct the injustices of slavery: It expanded who counts as American.
The Constitution says plainly that anyone born in the United States and subject to its laws is a citizen. That principle was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which ruled that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents was a citizen, establishing that US-born children of immigrants are citizens. This was despite the fact that Chinese immigrants at the time were barred from naturalization under the Chinese Exclusion laws.
The case now before the court seeks to undo that understanding.
If the court strikes down birthright citizenship, it would let the government decide who counts as American based on the circumstances of their birth.
The 14th Amendment’s authors understood the danger of that approach. Once citizenship becomes conditional, every other right soon follows.
Ending birthright citizenship would affect everyone—not just children of immigrants—in a system that has long questioned the belonging of people of color, including Black Americans.
Who must prove their citizenship? Who is presumed to have it? Who gets stopped, questioned, or detained? Who lives under suspicion?
History answers clearly: Marginalized communities pay the price first.
I write this as someone who has spent more than 15 years organizing for racial justice and as a Black man whose citizenship was once explicitly denied by law. Today, I see how systemic racism—from policing to voter suppression—continues to shape the livelihoods of Black Americans.
And that danger does not stop with birthright citizenship: These attacks threaten the entire 14th Amendment, including the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses that underpin victories against segregation, discrimination, voter suppression, and unchecked government power.
If the government can redefine citizenship, unequal treatment under the law becomes easier to justify. Civil rights become conditional. Equal protection becomes negotiable. State power expands while accountability shrinks.
We have seen this playbook before. After Reconstruction came Jim Crow. During industrialization came the Chinese Exclusion Act. Black workers were excluded from key New Deal protections. The gains of the civil rights movement were followed by voter suppression and mass incarceration.
Each time progress threatened entrenched power, the response was restriction rather than inclusion.
The 14th Amendment was written to break that cycle.
Defending birthright citizenship is not only about protecting children of immigrants. It is about preserving a constitutional framework that recognizes our shared humanity and limits the government’s ability to decide whose rights matter.
So the stakes could not be clearer during these Supreme Court arguments.
Birthright citizenship is more than law. It is the promise that America’s diversity, struggle, and resilience matter. It is the legacy of those who fought to be recognized as fully human—and the foundation of a democracy that must belong to all of us.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "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."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Pushes Blatantly Unconstitutional Plan for New Mid-Decade Census
"Donald Trump has no power to alter either the timing or who is counted," said one prominent elections attorney.
Aug 07, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday pushed for a new census to be drawn up in a move that would flatly violate the United States Constitution, which states explicitly that the census shall be conducted once every ten years and shall count all people within each state.
In a post on his Truth Social page, Trump said that he had "instructed our Department of Commerce to immediately begin work on a new and highly accurate CENSUS based on modern day facts and figures and, importantly, using the results and information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024."
The president then added that "people who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS."
Many constitutional law experts, however, were quick to point out that Trump lacks any kind of power to demand the creation of a mid-decade census that excludes undocumented immigrants under the United States Constitution.
Anthony Michael Kreis, a professor of constitutional law at Georgia State College of Law, wrote on X that the "Constitution's text is plain" regarding the census and it doesn't allow for anything resembling Trump's plan to exclude undocumented immigrants from the count.
Kreis specifically pointed to the changes to the census made by the 14th Amendment, which demands that the census count "the whole number of persons in each State," as a legal dagger in the heart of Trump's scheme.
"The 14th Amendment's mandate that the census 'count[s] the whole number of persons in each State' governs us in no uncertain terms," he argued.
Elections attorney Marc Elias similarly dismissed Trump's plan as a flagrant violation of the Constitution.
"The Constitution dictates that the census is a count [of] 'all persons' conducted every 'ten years,'" he wrote on Bluesky. "Donald Trump has no power to alter either the timing or who is counted."
The United States Supreme Court in 2019 blocked the first Trump administration from adding a question about residents' citizenship to the 2020 census, and it's not clear how Trump's order for a new census excluding undocumented immigrants would be different from his prior attempt.
In addition to questions of constitutional legality, Trump's plan also has issues when it comes to sheer logistics.
Michael McDonald, a political scientist at the University of Florida, argued that Trump's plan is wildly impractical given the resources and time needed to successfully conduct an accurate census.
"Just from a logistical standpoint it is not feasible to conduct a 'new' mid-decade census with accuracy," he wrote on Bluesky. "To give a sense of the scale of what is required, preparations are already underway for the *2030* census. This will add chaos to the Census Bureau and degrade the accuracy of the 2030 census."
CNN political reporter Aaron Blake also noted on X that it's unclear that excluding undocumented immigrants from the census would even be much of a political boon for the GOP. As evidence, Blake pointed to a 2020 estimate from Pew Research Center projecting that Republican-controlled states such as Florida and Texas would each lose a seat if their undocumented immigrant populations weren't counted, which would balance out projected GOP gains in Alabama and Ohio under such circumstances.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy