Supreme Court Takes Up Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order in Historic Showdown

The battle over who qualifies as an American at birth has officially reached the highest court in the land.

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the historic challenge to President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order restricting birthright citizenship, setting the stage for what could be the most consequential interpretation of the 14th Amendment in more than a century.

Trump’s order—one of the signature actions of his America First immigration agenda—asserts that children born to illegal aliens on U.S. soil do not automatically receive citizenship, countering decades of bureaucratic interpretation and closing what critics call one of the most abused loopholes in American law.

For years, immigration hawks have argued that the federal government’s interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment has been twisted far beyond the intent of its authors—who were focused on guaranteeing citizenship to formerly enslaved Americans, not incentivizing mass illegal migration.

Trump’s team says the amendment was never meant to serve as a magnet for “birth tourism,” chain migration, or criminal cartels exploiting the maternity pipeline.

Opponents—including a coalition of progressive attorneys general—claim Trump has overstepped his authority, insisting that the 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship regardless of immigration status.

But the Supreme Court’s originalist majority signaled deep skepticism Friday toward the idea that Congress or the courts must blindly accept a loophole that never existed in the amendment’s historical context.

During arguments, several justices pressed the challengers to explain why the United States should reward citizenship to individuals whose parents entered the country illegally or temporarily.

Justice Gorsuch questioned whether the Court has ever explicitly held that children of illegal aliens are guaranteed citizenship: “Show me the case where we have decided this question.”

Justice Thomas focused on Reconstruction-era debates showing overwhelming evidence that the authors did not intend universal, unconditional birth citizenship.

Meanwhile, the Court’s liberal bloc attempted to frame Trump’s order as discriminatory and destabilizing, warning of “statelessness” and “harm to families.”

But even Justice Kagan conceded that the Court was entering “largely uncharted” legal territory—an admission that the Left’s claims of settled law are far from accurate.

Conservatives blasted the lawsuit as yet another attempt to preserve the mass-migration system that enriches corporate donors and shifts political power to sanctuary regions.

Rep. Matt Gaetz said the case “will determine whether the United States has borders or not.”

Sen. J.D. Vance called birthright citizenship “the holy grail of the open-borders Left.”

Grassroots activists note that ending automatic citizenship for illegal aliens would remove one of the key incentives driving millions toward the southern border.

The Court is expected to issue a decision by early summer 2026. If Trump prevails, the ruling could:

End birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens Reduce chain migration Reduce taxpayer obligations for benefits and entitlements Dismantle the “anchor baby” loophole Strengthen U.S. sovereignty and immigration enforcement

America First supporters argue that restoring constitutional clarity is essential for securing the borders and preventing foreign nationals from gaining automatic political footholds through exploitation.

For now, the country awaits a ruling that could redefine what it means to be an American in the modern era — and whether the Constitution protects U.S. sovereignty or the interests of globalist migration networks.

Some background from scotusblog.com:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/how-birthright-citizenship-made-it-back-to-the-supreme-court/

SCOTUSBlog states accurately the status as of 9/29/2025.

Although Sauer had the option to ask the court to fast-track its petition, he chose not to. Accordingly, if the justices decide to take the case (for which four votes are needed), it will likely schedule oral arguments for sometime in 2026 and reach a decision at the end of the upcoming term – most likely in late June or early July.

The thread article is a load of bollocks.

The article dated November 21, 2025 falsely states that oral arguments were heard on Friday, presumably November 21, 2025. The only oral argument this year related to citizenship was heard on May 15, 2025.

As of 11/23, cert has not been announced as granted and there is nothing but a petition before the court.

The thread article claims:

Justices Zero In on 14th Amendment Text & Intent
During arguments, several justices pressed the challengers to explain why the United States should reward citizenship to individuals whose parents entered the country illegally or temporarily.
Justice Gorsuch questioned whether the Court has ever explicitly held that children of illegal aliens are guaranteed citizenship: “Show me the case where we have decided this question.”
Justice Thomas focused on Reconstruction-era debates showing overwhelming evidence that the authors did not intend universal, unconditional birth citizenship.
Meanwhile, the Court’s liberal bloc attempted to frame Trump’s order as discriminatory and destabilizing, warning of “statelessness” and “harm to families.”
But even Justice Kagan conceded that the Court was entering “largely uncharted” legal territory—an admission that the Left’s claims of settled law are far from accurate.

Maybe some AI hallucinated that stuff about a non-existent oral argument. The quotes do not exist in the oral arguments in Casa. I asked Co-Pilot if any of the quotes were made by any of the justices in any oral argument and was provided the following:

Direct answer: There is no evidence that the alleged statements attributed to Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, Kagan, or others were ever made in oral arguments. The Supreme Court has not yet held oral arguments on Trump’s birthright citizenship order; the case is still at the petition or preliminary stage. The quotes in Big League Politics appear to be fabricated or speculative rather than drawn from any official transcript.

Respondent's Brief at 7-10 provides a delightful review of U.S. Supreme Court precedent directly on point.

3. Precedent interpreting the Citizenship Clause
After the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption, this Court in Elk v. Wilkins, addressed the Citizenship Clause’s meaning with respect to Native Americans born in the United States. Explaining why the Citizenship Clause was understood to exclude certain Native Americans, Justice Gray reasoned that tribes, despite being within the United States, “were alien nations, distinct political communities,” with whom the United States dealt through treaties or specific legislation. Elk, 112 U.S. at 99. As a result, tribal members “are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ . . . than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.” Id. at 102.
Fourteen years later, Justice Gray wrote this Court’s decision in Wong Kim Ark. The opinion exhaustively canvassed the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history, English and early American common law, and the meaning of birthright citizenship to the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment. It held that the Citizenship Clause stood for “the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion of the United States, notwithstanding alienage of parents[.]” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 688, 692-93. Thus, Wong Kim Ark, a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who could not themselves become U.S. citizens, was an American citizen. Id. at 704.
This Court’s decision hinged on the meaning of the Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The “real object” of that language was “to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases . . . recognized [as] exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.” Id. at 682. The sole exceptions are “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state[.]” Id. This understanding was consistent with Elk, Justice Gray concluded, as that decision “concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents . . . not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.” Id. In emphasizing the broad scope of the citizenship grant, this Court explained that it “was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States, who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption.” Id. at 676.
Since Wong Kim Ark, this Court has reiterated repeatedly that children born in this country are citizens without regard to their parents’ “primary allegiance” or domicile. See, e.g., Errico, 385 U.S. at 215 (explaining that a child had “acquired United States citizenship at birth” even though their noncitizen parents had entered the United States unlawfully); United States ex rel. Hintopoulos, 353 U.S. at 73 (stating that a child born to two “illegal[ly] presen[t]” noncitizens was “of course, an American citizen by birth”); see also Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129, 131 (1958); Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 720 (1952); Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 329 (1939); Ah How v. United States, 193 U.S. 65, 65 (1904). And in Plyler v. Doe, this Court unanimously rejected the argument that undocumented immigrants fall outside the “jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. 457 U.S. at 211 n.10 (“[N]o plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”); id. at 243 (Burger, C.J., dissenting) (agreeing with this conclusion).

Neither Plaintiff's Petition, nor Reply Brief, addressed the precedential cases of Errico; Hintopoulos; Kawakita; Elg; Ah How, or Plyler.

But there’s no way the Civil War was going to be fought without the issue of slavery being settled, such as it was.

We have all been taught to believe the Civil War was about slavery, but I have come to realize this is just propaganda.

In March of 1861, the Northern dominated Congress voted by a 2/3rds margin to pass the Corwin Amendment, which would make slavery legal and permanent in the United States. Therefore it would seem to me the issue of slavery was settled by an act of congress, at least so far as the US Government was concerned.

So if slavery was settled, what was the fight about?

The fight was about whether or not the Southern states would continue to pump 700 million dollars per year into the Northern economy.

Southern independence would greatly cut the amount of money flowing into wealthy Northern pockets; Into the pockets of powerful men, who would absolutely not take such an affront sitting down.

These powerful men marshalled the government into stopping Southern independence... and not because they cared about slaves. They pushed the government into acting because to do nothing would result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of income for their businesses.

And so the government acted on their behest, and launched a war against the Southern states to stop independence.

It had nothing to do with slavery beyond the fact the slaves were producing most of the money everyone was fighting over.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.