Birthright Citizenship

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order denies citizenship to children born to parents who are undocumented immigrants or whose documentation is temporary, such as in the cases of student, work, or tourist visas (among others). The document states that its provisions will only apply to people born 30 days after the date of the order.

In the immediate days following the order, 22 states and a number of cities, immigrant rights organizations, and individual people filed lawsuits in federal district courts around the country, and judges responded by placing immediate and universal injunctions blocking the order until the lawsuits were resolved. The question of whether district court judges had the authority to order such universal injunctions reached the Supreme Court, and ultimately the Court ruled that district courts did not have that authority. The Supreme Court ruled that the injunctions would only apply to the specific plaintiffs of the lawsuits, thus allowing EO 14160 to go into effect for the states that had not filed suits to stop it.

Within hours, the ACLU, the Democracy Defenders Fund, and the Asian Law Caucus filed a class action lawsuit known as Barbara v. Trump. Lower courts declared the children affected by the executive order a “nation-wide class”, allowing for rulings in July, 2025 that could be applied broadly. In September, the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to rule on the question of birthright citizenship, and in December the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. On April 1st, 2026, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer and ACLU national legal director Cecilia Wang presented before the Court. The justices are expected to issue their ruling by late June or early July, 2026.

Ultimately, even a limited ruling on the particulars of this case have the potential to ripple across American legal, educational, and social institutions. Questions remain about the status of foundling children whose parents (and their legal status) are unknown, or the children of mothers who have been brought to the U.S. against their will in trafficking operations. There is also an opportunity for the court to rule more broadly on the meaning of the 14th Amendment, making it difficult for Congress or future administrations to further limit access to birthright citizenship. Still, some fear that, no matter what the ruling, the attack on an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that has held for over a century is an indication that sentiments about what it means to be “American” are changing, exchanging a melting-pot meritocratic ideology for one that is more exclusionary.

This edition of Current Events curates the primary documents pertinent to the April 1st hearing alongside the hearing itself and secondary analysis both before and after the hearing. Importantly, vocabulary in this edition focuses on legal definitions of words that arose during the hearing, and essential questions reflect both those voiced during the hearing and later by analysts. Though some of these questions may remain until July, utilizing these resources now can help readers better understand the scope and meaning of the court’s upcoming ruling.

Essential Questions:

Does the legal status of a child’s parents have bearing on the child’s American citizenship if the child is born in the United States? How are unincorporated territories of the U.S. to be figured into the concept of jus soli?
What are the legal frameworks of birthright citizenship and the recently proposed statutory changes?
How should the U.S. consider or restrict the citizenship of foundling children or children of women illegally trafficked to the United States?
What does it mean to be “subject to the jurisdiction of” or “not subject to any foreign power”?
What was the original intent of the 14th Amendment?
What are the potential consequences for children affected by EO 14160?

Vocabulary:

Jurisdiction – the legal authority, power, or right of a court or government entity to hear, decide, and enforce laws over a particular case, person, or geographical area. It limits where legal matters can be filed and ensures cases are heard in the appropriate forum

Domicile – A domicile is a person’s true, principal, and permanent home where they physically reside and intend to return indefinitely. Unlike residence, which can be temporary or multiple, an individual can only have one domicile at a time. It is essential for determining jurisdiction, taxes, and voting rights

Allegiance – Types of Allegiance:

Natural Allegiance: Inseparable, permanent loyalty acquired by birth. This allegiance is an inherent part of being a native-born citizen.
Local Allegiance: Temporary, qualified allegiance owed by aliens residing within the realm.
Acquired Allegiance: Gained through naturalization or denization.
Legal Allegiance: Oaths taken to the Sovereign or State.

Prospective Application – Looking forward; contemplating the future. A law is said to be prospective (as opposed to retrospective) when it is applicable only to cases which shall arise after its enactment. (The Law Dictionary)

Temporary Sojourners – an individual residing in a location for a limited, non-permanent period, often as a visitor, foreign worker, or pilgrim. They are distinguished by their temporary status, rather than permanent settlement, in a foreign land or away from their primary home

Jus sanguinis and jus soli – translates directly to «right of blood» and refers to a legal principle where citizenship is acquired through parents or ancestors rather than the place of birth. This contrasts with jus soli, or «right of soil,» which grants citizenship based on birth within a territory.

Videos:

Background Resources:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark National Constitution Center, Accessed April 01, 2026

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868) National Archives, Accessed April 01, 2026

U.S. public is split on birthright citizenship for people whose parents immigrated illegally Pew Research Center, June 10, 2025

Executive Order 14160 Whitehouse.gov January 20, 2025

Trump v. Barbara Supremecourt.gov, Accessed April 01, 2026

Recent Articles:

Birthright citizenship in global perspective (audio). The World, April 01, 2026

Supreme Court justices appear sceptical over Trump’s changes to US birthright citizenship rules BBC, April 01, 2026

Trump v. Barbara Oral Argument C-Span, April 01, 2026

Addressing adoptee citizenship concerns National Council for Adoption, February 17, 2025

What Parents Need to Know as Birthright Citizenship Case Reaches Supreme Court Time, April 1, 2026

How a SCOTUS decision on birthright citizenship could impact education access NPR, March 30, 2026

Recent Editorials:

Birthright Citizenship and the Making of Citizens American Enterprise Institute, March 31, 2026

Democratic Rep.: Think You’re American? Maybe Not According to Trump | Opinion Newsweek, November 04, 2025

Case Against Birthright Citizenship is Stronger Than You Think The Oberlin Review, February 14, 2025

The man behind Donald Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship Politico, March 31, 2026

Timeline: What’s happening with birthright citizenship? Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote, April 01, 2026

Lesson Plans:

Reconstructing American citizenship National Museum of African American History and Culture, Accessed April 01, 2026

Joint Resolution Proposing the 14th Amendment Docsteach.org, Accessed April 1, 2026

Citizenship history using primary sources Immigrationhistory.org Accessed April 1, 2026

Resources for Younger Students:

Citizenship and Participation iCivics, Accessed April 01, 2026

Wong Kim Ark and Birthright Citizenship Asian American Education Project, Accessed April 1, 2026