The supreme court said that trump could use a sharpie to cross out birth right citizenship from the constitution
Executive summary
The Supreme Court agreed Dec. 5, 2025, to hear whether President Trump’s January 20 executive order—telling federal agencies not to recognize U.S. citizenship for most children born on U.S. soil to noncitizen parents—can stand, after lower courts blocked the order as violating the 14th Amendment and federal law [1] [2]. The case will determine whether a president can, by executive order, alter the long‑standing understanding of birthright citizenship embodied in the 14th Amendment and statutes codifying the Citizenship Clause [3] [2].
1. What the Supreme Court actually agreed to decide
The court did not “say Trump could use a sharpie to cross out birthright citizenship.” It agreed to resolve whether the executive order signed on Jan. 20 that denies automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents is constitutional and consistent with federal law; lower courts have uniformly held the order violates the 14th Amendment and a federal statute [1] [2] [4].
2. The administration’s argument and where it clashes with precedent
The government contends the Citizenship Clause—“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”—does not cover children of parents here unlawfully or temporarily, and that the president can instruct agencies to treat such births as noncitizen births; the Justice Department has urged the Court to overturn the modern consensus on that clause [2] [5]. That position directly challenges long‑standing judicial and statutory interpretations dating back to the 19th century and codified in mid‑20th century law [3] [2].
3. Why lower courts blocked the order
Multiple federal courts enjoined the policy, finding it likely violates the 14th Amendment and related statutes and that allowing it to operate would threaten the citizenship status of children and create widespread legal chaos; judges concluded the president exceeded lawful authority [1] [2] [4]. The Supreme Court previously addressed procedural questions about nationwide injunctions in related litigation but did not resolve constitutionality, prompting this direct review [1] [5].
4. Stakes: who would be affected and how big the change is
If the order were upheld, it could remove automatic U.S. citizenship from many infants born in the United States each year, “throw[ing] into doubt the citizenship of hundreds of thousands of babies” and effectively redefining who is an American overnight, according to reporting and legal observers [6] [7]. Opponents emphasize the 14th Amendment was adopted after the Civil War to secure citizenship and equal status, and that Congress later codified the prevailing interpretation [3] [2].
5. Political and legal context shaping the case
The dispute feeds into wider tensions over executive power and immigration policy in a term where the White House has aggressively used executive actions on immigration; the case also places a 6‑3 conservative court in the spotlight over whether it will permit a president to alter a century‑old constitutional understanding by directive [8] [9]. Some legal commentators argue the Court may reject the order not on policy but because presidents lack authority to rewrite constitutional meaning via executive order [7].
6. What to expect procedurally and timing
The Supreme Court scheduled oral argument early next year; an eventual decision is expected by late June, and will conclusively determine whether the Jan. 20 directive can take effect or remains preempted by the Constitution and federal law [3] [10]. The Court’s ruling will likely address both textual interpretation of the 14th Amendment and separation‑of‑powers limits on executive action [2] [5].
7. Competing viewpoints and the limits of current reporting
News organizations uniformly report the Court will decide constitutionality; the administration frames the move as correcting a “mistaken” interpretation with important policy consequences, while advocates for birthright citizenship call it a core, settled protection of equality under law [5] [11]. Available sources do not mention any Supreme Court statement likening the action to “using a sharpie to cross out” constitutional text; that phrasing appears to be rhetorical or metaphorical and is not quoted as a Court ruling in the reporting provided (not found in current reporting).
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the provided reporting; it does not include the Court’s briefs, unpublished orders, or subsequent filings, and thus cannot assess arguments beyond what the news stories summarize (p1_s1–[1]5).