The United States Supreme Court is once again at the center of a constitutional clash, hearing oral arguments today in a high-stakes case tied to President Donald Trump's controversial immigration agenda. At issue is the legality of nationwide injunctions — but behind the procedural debate lies a much deeper threat: the Trump administration's attempt to gut the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship.

The Executive Order That Ignited a Firestorm

On the very first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order denying citizenship to children born on U.S. soil if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. The administration argues that such children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States — a direct challenge to more than 125 years of settled constitutional law.

The executive order triggered an immediate wave of legal challenges from states, immigrant rights advocates, and constitutional scholars. Every federal court that has ruled on the matter so far has sided with the challengers, reaffirming that the Constitution grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, with limited exceptions for children of diplomats, hostile occupiers, and members of sovereign Native American tribes (before 1924).

What the 14th Amendment Actually Says

The first sentence of the 14th Amendment — ratified in 1868 to ensure full citizenship rights to formerly enslaved people — is unambiguous:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court confirmed that this clause extends to virtually all children born in the U.S., including those of noncitizens.

Trump's interpretation — that undocumented immigrants and some visa holders are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States — flies in the face of constitutional precedent, legal scholarship, and decades of judicial interpretation.

Why the Supreme Court Is Involved — And Why It Matters

Technically, the justices are not yet ruling on the constitutionality of Trump's order. Instead, they're reviewing lower court decisions that issued nationwide injunctions to block the executive order from taking effect across all 50 states.

The Trump administration claims that such injunctions are an abuse of judicial authority and should only apply to the parties in the specific lawsuit. But opponents argue that anything less would result in chaos — where a child born in California might be recognized as a U.S. citizen, but one born in Florida on the same day might not.

The administration also asked the Court to weigh in on related emergency matters — including its efforts to:

• End humanitarian parole for over 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela;

• Strip Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from more than 350,000 Venezuelans;

• Expedite mass deportations under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act — an 18th-century wartime law.

The Dangers of the "Shadow Docket"

This case arrives at the Supreme Court via the so-called “shadow docket” — the set of emergency motions and appeals decided without full briefing or oral argument. Critics say this fast-tracked process lacks transparency and risks judicial overreach without adequate deliberation.

This is not the first time the Court has used the shadow docket to reshape major policy. In recent years, it blocked the EPA's air pollution safeguards and split on federal vaccine mandates — all without resolving the underlying legal merits.

What This Means for Immigrant Families

At Saluja Law, we are deeply concerned about the broader implications of today's case. Birthright citizenship is not just a legal doctrine — it's a foundational promise of equality, dignity, and fairness enshrined in the Constitution.

If this executive order is allowed to stand — even temporarily in some states — it will create a fragmented and discriminatory system where a baby's rights depend on geography and politics. It would mark the most radical rollback of constitutional protections for immigrants in more than a century.

Final Thoughts

While the Supreme Court may limit its ruling to the scope of nationwide injunctions, the questions asked — and the tone of the debate — will offer critical insight into how far this Court is willing to go in accommodating the Trump administration's sweeping immigration agenda.

We urge our clients, community members, and allies to stay informed and vigilant. If you have questions about how this may affect your family or your immigration status, Saluja Law is here to help.

📞 Contact us today to schedule a consultation.