The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for May 15 concerning President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for illegal aliens and those with lawful, but temporary visas. Four District Court Judges have blocked the president’s order.

1. Citizenship is defined in the U.S. Constitution

You can find the Founder’s definition of who is considered an American Citizen in Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868. It 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.”

View Comments (20)

Pray for your fellow intercessor.

At the time of its writing, the United States had just fought a brutal civil war to end slavery and stop the secession of the southern states. The 13^th Amendment gave the former slaves their freedom. The 14^th Amendment gave them citizenship. Most likely, the framers of the 14^th Amendment did not envision our current state of mass illegal immigration.

The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that nearly 400,000 children were born in the United States in 2024 to illegal aliens and foreign nationals. Foreign nationals are considered foreign students and “tourists” with visas. That’s 8-10% of all the births in the U.S.

But does the U.S. Constitution actually bestow birthright citizenship to everyone born in the United States regardless of the parents’ immigration status? Today, there is only one exception to birthright citizenship: children born to foreign diplomats.

2. President Trump’s Day One Executive Order

Within hours of being sworn in as the 47^th President, Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14159: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, which ended “birthright citizenship.” The president wrote that the Fourteenth Amendment “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to anyone born within the United States.”

The order also stated the Fourteenth Amendment has “always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Advocates of birthright citizenship tend to ignore these words between the commas.

President Trump outlines two categories of children born in the U.S., who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States:

1. If one parent is “unlawfully present in the United States” and the other is not a citizen or a “lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth”, the child cannot claim birthright citizenship.
2. If a parent’s presence in the country was “lawful, but temporary”, and the other parent is not a U.S. citizen, their child is not entitled to birthright citizenship.

In other words, a child must have at least one parent as a U.S. citizen or a parent who holds a legal Permanent Resident Card, also known as a “green card.”

Ending birthright citizenship used to be a position also held by Democrats. In fact, Senator Harry Reid in 1993 spoke out against birthright citizenship for illegals, saying “no sane country” would support such a policy. He called birthright citizenship a “reward” for breaking the law, entitling the newly minted citizen full access to all social and welfare services. “That’s a lot of services,” Reid criticized.

These children born of illegals are called “anchor babies,” because supposedly the birth stalls deportation and makes it easier for parents of U.S. citizens to become citizens themselves.

The executive order is not retroactive and applies to children born after February 19, 2025.

3. Immediate Lawfare Ensues

The ending of birthright citizenship is perhaps the most controversial of the President’s strategies to end illegal immigration. It was a promise he made numerous times on the campaign trail.

Proponents of birthright citizenship declare the language of the 14^th Amendment includes children of illegal aliens. Within two days of his executive order, 22 blue states filed lawsuits against the president’s executive order saying that birthright for all is “engraved” in the Constitution and can’t be changed – ever!

Three days after the signing of the Executive Order, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour of the Western District of Washington, a Reagan appointee, blocked implementation of Pres. Trump’s executive order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.” The 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to overturn Judge Coughenour’s injunction.

Then on February 5, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland, a Biden appointee, issued a nationwide injunction in the lawsuit filed by five pregnant illegal immigrants, stating “no court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation.”

On February 10, Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire, a GW Bush appointee, became the third judge to block Pres. Trump’s executive order, followed on the 13^th by Boston’s U.S. District Judge Leo Sorkin, an Obama appointee.

In addition to arguing that birthright citizenship is “enshrined in the Constitution,” plaintiffs’ attorneys in the Boston case were also concerned that the states would lose federal funding to “provide essential services” to these “low-income children.”

Most of the lawsuits filed to preserve birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, as well as the lawsuits to stop Pres. Trump deporting illegal alien gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, are being funded by George Soros.

4. A Very Brief Legal History of Birthright Citizenship

Proponents of birthright citizenship often point to the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. Wong was born in the United States to Chinese legal immigrants. At the time, the country had a law, known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, that said no Chinese immigrant could become a U.S. citizen. But since Wong was born in the U.S., he was a citizen, not an immigrant.

President Trump’s Justice Department argues that the Wong case applies to children whose parents had a “permanent domicile and residence in the U.S.,” not to parents here illegally.

In an 1884 case, Elks v. Winter, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Elk, a Native American born on a reservation, was not a U.S. Citizen under the 14^th Amendment, as people residing on reservations were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. at the time of their birth.

Proponents also refer to a 1982 case, Phyler v. Doe, that held a state “cannot prevent children of undocumented immigrants from attending public school.” Proponents say that in a footnote to the opinion, citizenship is inferred because Texas allowed children born of illegals living in Texas into public schools but barred children who had crossed into the country illegally.

President Trump in his Executive Order is questioning the phrase in the 14^th Amendment “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” In his petition to the Supreme Court, Pres. Trump put forth the argument that illegal aliens and those on nonimmigrant visas are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore have no right for their newborns to receive citizenship.

In March, the Trump Administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and permit the implementation of his Executive Order. The birthright citizenship order “reflects the original meaning, historical understanding and proper scope of the Citizenship Clause,” wrote U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the administration.

The administration’s petition also stated that universal birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration and “birth tourism,” in which people travel to the United States to give birth to secure citizenship for their children. That’s estimated to be about 33,000 births a year.

On April 17, the Supreme Court said it will hear arguments on May 15 on Pres. Trump’s Executive Order to restrict automatic birthright citizenship. The Court left in place the nationwide injunctions until it rules on the case.

5. The Supreme Court Has Three Choices

Choice #1: The Supreme Court could agree with President Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizen upending 150 years of how the 14^th Amendment had been defined. No further children born in this country to this classification of parents would be granted citizenship – further disincentivizing people to enter the U.S. illegally or on a tourist visa for the purpose of giving birth.

Choice #2: The Supreme Court could declare birthright citizenship does mean children born to illegal aliens and foreign tourists. Only 33 out of 195 countries in the world today offer birthright citizenship – a mere 17%.

Choice #3: The Supreme Court could punt on the issue referring to Section 5 of the 14^th Amendment, The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article, and decide any change to birthright citizenship must be made by Congress by law, not by a president’s Executive Order. For instance, in 1924, Congress authorized citizenship for all Native Americans born in the United States, basically overturning the 1884 Elk v. Winter case.

Let us Pray for the Justices to do God’s Will

Dear Lord, we ask that you grant holy wisdom to the nine Justices deciding this controversial issue. We ask that in oral arguments on May 15 they will listen with discernment to sort the truth from the lies. For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones (Psalm 37:28).

Lord, we praise you for your just character and common grace. We thank You that You alone are the final Word of justice. We thank you that your throne, O God, is forever and ever and the scepter in your kingdom is a scepter of justice (Psalm 45:6).

Lord, guide the Justices to a fair and just decision during their deliberations. May your Spirit rest on them, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of advice and power, the Spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord (Isaiah 11:1-5). We pray that You will deliver justice quickly.

Lord, we pray that whatever the decision, the people will hear it and accept it peaceably. We pray against any anger and violence that may be fermenting, and that no violence will erupt when the Supreme Court releases its decision. Let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream! (Amos 5:24)

In Jesus Name, Amen.

Add your own prayers ahead of oral arguments below.

Belinda Brewster analyzes cultural, political, and world events from a biblical worldview. Belinda’s passion is to equip, support, and encourage parents and grandparents who are courageously battling against the spiritual and cultural forces impacting children and grandchildren. Photo Credit: Kurgenc/Getty Images.