As of Aug. 3, 2025, birthright citizenship remains the constitutional status quo—but it is under active threat.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that “all persons born … and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This has been the cornerstone of jus soli (citizenship by place of birth) that has defined American identity for over a century. For those born in the U.S., this is an accepted norm, and deriving U.S. citizenship by birth has been a common bond among a diverse citizenry.
But on Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” This order sought to redefine “subject to the jurisdiction” so that children born in the U.S. to parents who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents—such as undocumented individuals or those on temporary visas—would no longer receive automatic citizenship if born after Feb. 19, 2025.
A rapid wave of legal challenges ensued, and several courts issued nationwide preliminary injunctions blocking the policy as unconstitutional. But on June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Trump v. CASA that lower courts may no longer issue blanket nationwide injunctions beyond plaintiffs directly involved in litigation. It did not rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself.
Subsequently, federal courts in New Hampshire (Barbara v. Trump) and Maryland granted class-action-based national injunctions protecting children who would be affected by the executive order, indefinitely blocking enforcement for the certified class as of July 10, 2025.
In late July, the 9th Circuit, a federal appeals court, explicitly ruled the executive order unconstitutional, upholding a nationwide block on its enforcement, citing both the Fourteenth Amendment and the precedent of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Meanwhile, the administration’s immigration officials (USCIS) have quietly drafted implementation plans anticipating eventual enforcement, despite the court blocks—a sign the policy may be imminent if legal obstacles fall away.
Constitutional context and stakes
The cornerstone precedent, Wong Kim Ark (1898), affirmed that a child born on U.S. soil—even to noncitizen parents, with limited exceptions—acquires citizenship, a principle reaffirmed repeatedly by courts ever since.
Scholars and advocacy groups argue that repealing birthright citizenship would not curb unauthorized migration but instead, increase the unauthorized population by millions over decades. Studies from the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) and Pennsylvania State University’s Population Research Institute project suggest that if birthright is eliminated, there would be up to 2.7 million more unauthorized individuals by 2045, with 5.4 million more by 2075.
Currently, birthright citizenship remains intact for everyone born in the U.S., regardless of parental status. Courts have thus far prevented enforcement of the executive order. However, the legal status is fluid: Multiple circuit courts seem poised to declare the order unconstitutional, but a final resolution likely awaits the U.S. Supreme Court.
Looking ahead: implications for the future
If appellate courts invalidate the executive order, the administration may seek review at the Supreme Court. A final decision would clarify the reach of the 14th Amendment and the executive branch’s power regarding citizenship policy.
Parallel to legal fights, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025 (H.R. 569 / S. 304) seeks to legislatively redefine eligibility, limiting birthright citizenship only to those born to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, and possibly active-duty service members. That bill remains pending and likely faces strong opposition.
As of Aug. 3, 2025, birthright citizenship remains alive and protected, thanks to aggressive judicial resistance to Executive Order 14160. But with multiple courts gearing toward declaring the order unconstitutional, and pending Congressional proposals, the future remains uncertain—poised on whether the Supreme Court ultimately preserves or permits what critics see as a radical redefinition of the Citizenship Clause.
The implications are profound: from legal consistency and the interpretation of constitutional protections to demographic shifts and the rights of children born on U.S. soil.
Barbara Wong-Wilson is an attorney at Mission Law & Advocacy, P.C. and SW Law Group P.C. wo**@*********ws.com.
