Have there been major court cases or legislative attempts to limit birthright citizenship?
Executive summary
Major recent efforts to limit birthright citizenship include President Trump’s January 20, 2025 Executive Order No. 14160 and companion congressional bills (the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025: S.304/H.R.569), and multiple federal lawsuits that reached the U.S. Supreme Court for review in the 2025–26 term (the consolidated litigation including Trump v. Barbara / Trump v. Washington and Trump v. CASA) [1] [2] [3]. Lower courts repeatedly enjoined the executive order as likely unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act; the Supreme Court granted review in December 2025 to resolve the question [4] [2] [5].
1. A “Day One” executive gambit that became a national test case
On his first day back in office, President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, directing federal agencies not to recognize citizenship for many U.S.-born children of parents who were “unlawfully present” or only temporarily present; that Order was immediately the target of lawsuits and preliminary injunctions in multiple federal courts [1] [6]. Those injunctions argued the Order violated Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statute 8 U.S.C. §1401(a); district courts and two appellate panels blocked enforcement while litigation proceeded [4] [7] [6].
2. Supreme Court review: what the justices agreed to decide
After lower-court battles over nationwide injunctions produced a procedural ruling in Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court in December 2025 granted review of the core constitutional challenge in the Barbara case — asking whether the executive order’s limitations on birthright citizenship are consistent with the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment and related federal law [8] [2] [5]. The consolidated cases were expected to be argued in the spring term with a decision by summer 2026 in the reporting available [2] [9].
3. Congressional parallel: bills to redefine “subject to the jurisdiction”
Congressional Republicans introduced matching legislation — the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025 (S.304 in the Senate, H.R.569 in the House) — that would change the statutory definition of who is a U.S. national or citizen at birth by narrowing who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, mirroring the executive branch’s policy goals [10] [3]. Sponsors framed the bills as closing what they call a “magnet” for unlawful immigration; advocacy groups and legal commentators say the bills would reverse long-standing practice and face constitutional challenges [11] [12].
4. The legal foundations and opposing interpretive camps
Supporters of restrictions argue the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment excludes certain classes of noncitizen parents and that Wong Kim Ark has been misread beyond its facts; opponents point to Wong Kim Ark, statutory text (8 U.S.C. §1401(a)), and a century-plus of government and judicial practice recognizing territorial birthright citizenship [13] [14] [15]. Major legal organizations, the ACLU and Brennan Center among them, have argued the executive order is unlawful and that only Congress or a constitutional amendment could properly alter birthright citizenship [16] [14] [6].
5. Litigation strategy and remedies: nationwide injunctions vs. class actions
Early litigation produced nationwide injunctions protecting U.S.-born children, but the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in CASA limited lower courts’ use of universal injunctions as a procedural matter; that ruling did not decide the 14th Amendment question itself, however, and other cases (including Barbara) proceeded by class-action route to secure broader relief [17] [9] [16]. Plaintiffs and civil-rights groups say class actions like Barbara secure nationwide protection and remain in place pending the high court’s merits review [16] [17].
6. Stakes, numbers, and political aims
Advocates for restriction framed the measures as immigration control; critics warn of large social consequences, including risks of statelessness and the denial of citizenship to children born on U.S. soil [12] [18]. Legislative tracking shows significant interest: by early December 2025, dozens of House members had cosponsored H.R.569 and supporters in the Senate publicly championed S.304 [19] [11]. Available sources do not quantify precisely how many births would be affected under every scenario; reporting anticipates large but varying impacts [18].
7. What to watch next and the limits of current reporting
The Supreme Court’s oral argument and ultimate ruling will decide whether an executive order can redefine who is a citizen at birth or whether such a change requires Congress or a constitutional amendment [2] [6]. Available sources do not mention whether Congress has advanced a compromise alternative to resolve the constitutional question short of a court decision, nor do they report a finalized estimate of the number of children who would lose recognized citizenship under each draft law or enforcement scenario (not found in current reporting).
Context and competing perspectives are clear in the record: the 2025 executive order and paired bills represent the most consequential federal attempts in modern times to limit birthright citizenship, and the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision will determine whether those political aims can be realized through executive or statutory action [1] [3] [4].