Birthright Citizenship showdown: Will US Supreme Court let Donald Trump’s order stand?

The US Supreme Court is reviewing one of Donald Trump’s most controversial policies — restricting birthright citizenship — but it may avoid ruling directly on whether the policy is legal. Instead, the justices are being asked to decide whether lower court judges had the power to block the policy nationwide.

Trump’s January executive order denies automatic US citizenship to children born on American soil unless one parent is a US citizen or permanent resident. This has sparked lawsuits from 22 Democratic-led states and civil rights groups, who argue the order violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which grants citizenship to nearly everyone born in the US.

What the Supreme Court is really looking at

The Trump administration isn't asking the court to rule yet on the constitutionality of the order. Instead, it wants the court to limit the scope of injunctions issued by federal judges in Washington, Massachusetts, and Maryland. These judges blocked the order nationwide. The administration says judges should not have the power to halt federal policies for the entire country based on just a few lawsuits.

If the Supreme Court agrees, Trump’s order could still be enforced in 28 states that did not sue — creating a split system where some babies born in the US are granted automatic citizenship and others are not, depending on the state.

Concern over ‘birth tourism’

The Trump administration argues that birthright citizenship encourages “birth tourism” — where pregnant women travel to the US to have children who automatically become citizens.

Parallels with Idaho transgender case

The Justice Department cited a 2023 case from Idaho where the Supreme Court allowed the state to enforce a ban on gender-affirming care — but only for people who weren’t part of the original lawsuit. The Trump administration is hoping for a similar outcome here.

The court has a 6–3 conservative majority. It’s unclear if the justices will stick to the issue of judicial power or rule on the broader citizenship policy. Oral arguments will give the first real clues.

The case could have a major impact — not just on citizenship laws but on how much power federal judges have to block presidential actions nationwide.