On the 14th of March, 2025, President Donald Trump escalated his controversial fight to end birthright citizenship in the United States, taking the battle to the Supreme Court.
Trump had signed an executive order on his first day in office, aiming to revoke automatic citizenship for children born on American soil to undocumented parents.
However, federal district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state swiftly blocked its implementation, citing the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born within the country’s borders.
In an urgent appeal, the Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to scale back the broad injunctions imposed by lower courts, limiting their impact to only the specific plaintiffs in the lawsuits.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris framed the request as “modest,” emphasizing that she was not seeking an immediate ruling on the constitutionality of Trump’s order.
“Those universal injunctions prohibit a Day 1 Executive Order from being enforced anywhere in the country,” Harris argued. She urged the Court to “restrict the scope” of nationwide rulings that, in her view, extended beyond their rightful reach.
Trump’s immigration policies have encountered repeated legal resistance, with courts across the country challenging his attempts to tighten immigration laws, slash federal spending, and reduce the size of government.
In a fresh setback, a California district judge on the 14th of March, 2025, mandated six federal agencies to reinstate thousands of workers who had been dismissed during his administration.
READ ALSO: Appeals Court Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Ban
Harris also criticized the rising number of sweeping injunctions against Trump’s policies, arguing that “universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions” and were obstructing the Executive Branch from fulfilling its constitutional duties.
Trump’s order, which was set to take effect by the 19th of February, hinged on a contentious interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The former president asserted that individuals in the U.S. illegally, or even those on temporary visas, were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore ineligible for birthright citizenship.
However, Judge John Coughenour, who presided over the case in Washington state, delivered a sharp rebuke. Calling the executive order “blatantly unconstitutional,” he remarked, “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades, and I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one.” Coughenour, notably appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, underscored the fundamental constitutional protections at stake.
Now, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court with three justices appointed by Trump stands poised to shape the outcome of this high-stakes legal battle, determining whether the president’s aggressive immigration agenda can withstand judicial scrutiny.