The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments next week in a constitutional showdown over President Donald Trump’s executive order that would end automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal aliens or parents on temporary visas.
The case, Trump v. Barbara, stems directly from Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which Trump signed on his first day back in office.
The order directs all federal agencies, including the State Department, Department of Homeland Security, and Social Security Administration, to stop issuing citizenship documents, such as passports and Social Security numbers, to any child born on American soil unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or a green card holder.
Children born to parents who are here illegally, on temporary visas (such as student, work, or tourist visas), or otherwise not subject to full U.S. jurisdiction would no longer qualify for automatic citizenship under the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
The order explicitly interprets the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude those whose parents owe primary allegiance to a foreign country.
The Supreme Court granted review in December after multiple lower courts, including federal district judges and appeals courts, issued nationwide injunctions blocking the policy.
All lower courts that have ruled so far have declared the executive order unconstitutional, citing the 1898 Supreme Court precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrant parents who were legal residents at the time was a citizen.
Oral arguments are set for Tuesday, with a final decision expected by late June or early July.
If the Supreme Court upholds the order, it will represent a major shift in American immigration policy, effectively ending the “anchor baby” incentive that encourages illegal crossings and birth tourism.
Only a handful of countries, mostly in the Americas, grant automatic citizenship based solely on being born there. Most nations in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia determine citizenship by bloodline or require at least one parent to be a citizen or permanent resident.
President Trump has repeatedly pointed out the national security and economic threats posed by the current system, pointing to “birth tourism” operations run out of China and other countries where pregnant women fly to the U.S. specifically to give birth and secure citizenship for their children.
Those children later return home but retain the ability to sponsor family members for U.S. visas or even claim benefits as adults.
Kayleigh McEnany, former White House press secretary and current Fox News contributor, broke down the stakes in a recent segment.
“Next week, the Supreme Court is slated to revisit President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order,” McEnany stated. “It directs all U.S. government agencies to refuse issuing citizenship documents to children born to illegal immigrants or children who do not have at least one parent who is an American or a lawful permanent resident. It’s a law President Trump says is in place all over the world, and he’s right. You’re looking at that map. And if he wins in court, he would effectively cripple the booming birth tourism industry.”
🚨 BREAKING: The US Supreme Court is about to consider UPHOLDING President Trump’s executive order that ends birthright citizenship for illegal aliens and migrants who cheat the system
This is a MUST-WIN for our republic. Do the right thing, SCOTUS! 🇺🇸
“Next week, the Supreme… pic.twitter.com/HSIGuuNBWO
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 28, 2026
The executive order cites the original intent of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War to grant citizenship to freed slaves. Trump’s legal team argues the amendment was never meant to apply to children of foreign nationals who entered illegally or temporarily and remain subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries.
There is historical evidence from the amendment’s drafters, including Sen. Jacob Howard, who stated in 1866 that the clause “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.”
Opponents, including the ACLU, Asian Law Caucus, and groups representing immigrants’ rights, argue that the order would create a massive number of stateless children born on U.S. soil and could retroactively cast doubt on the citizenship status of millions of people who were born to illegal aliens.
If upheld, the ruling would not require a constitutional amendment or act of Congress. It would simply affirm that the president can direct federal agencies to enforce a narrower reading of the Citizenship Clause through executive action.
Congress could later codify the change into statute for permanence.
Earlier this month, as The Gateway Pundit previously reported, investigative journalist and Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer exposed the alarming scale of China’s birth tourism operations targeting the United States during his testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Schweizer detailed how over 1,000 birth tourism companies in China are almost exclusively focused on facilitating births in America, potentially resulting in up to one million U.S. citizens being raised in the People’s Republic of China.
These citizens, indoctrinated in China, could undermine U.S. sovereignty as part of a broader “asymmetric warfare” strategy by the Chinese Communist Party. They can even vote in American elections, potentially from abroad via mail-in ballots.
Subscribe Below To Our Weekly Newsletter of our Latest Videos and Receive a Discount Code For A FREE eBook from our eBook store:
