Citizenship on Trial: Supreme Court Weighs Trump's Birthright Challenge

Justices deliberate on executive power and nationwide injunctions in a case that could redefine American citizenship rights.

May 16, 2025

Hey Small Biters,

In a pivotal session, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments concerning former President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. The case, while centered on immigration, also probes the extent of presidential authority and the judiciary's role in checking that power.

Trump's executive order, issued on his inauguration day, seeks to reinterpret the 14th Amendment by denying automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. This move challenges over a century of legal precedent affirming birthright citizenship regardless of parental status.

The administration's legal team argues that the order protects the integrity of American citizenship. However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted that the order contradicts four Supreme Court precedents, including the landmark 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed citizenship for children born in the U.S. to foreign parents.

Rather than directly addressing the constitutionality of the executive order, the administration is challenging the authority of lower federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions that block presidential policies. Solicitor General D. John Sauer described such injunctions as a "nuclear weapon" against executive power, arguing they lack historical precedent.

Justice Elena Kagan questioned the practicality of limiting court powers, asking whether every affected individual would need to file separate lawsuits to challenge a policy. Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that class-action lawsuits could serve as an alternative to nationwide injunctions.

Andrea Flores, vice-president of immigration policy at Forward US, warned that limiting the scope of injunctions could result in a "patchwork system" where birthright citizenship is recognized in some states but not others, leading to confusion and potential statelessness for children born during the interim.

The case has garnered significant public attention, with hundreds of protesters gathering outside the Supreme Court to voice their opposition to the executive order. Advocacy groups argue that the order is part of a broader agenda to restrict immigration and redefine American identity.

Legal experts contend that the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause is clear in granting citizenship to all persons born in the U.S., regardless of parental status, with narrow exceptions. They argue that any change to this interpretation should come through a constitutional amendment, not an executive order.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case could have far-reaching implications, not only for immigration policy but also for the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary. A ruling in favor of the administration could set a precedent for future executive actions to bypass established legal interpretations.

As the nation awaits the Court's decision, the case underscores the ongoing debate over the definition of American citizenship and the mechanisms by which it can be altered.

✍️

In halls where justice casts its light,
Debates ensue on birthright's might.
Does soil alone a citizen make,
Or must the law a new path take?
The gavel's echo soon will tell,
If ancient rights shall stand or fell.

🧭 A Small Bite to Carry

The 14th Amendment has long guaranteed citizenship to those born on U.S. soil, a principle now under scrutiny.
The case examines the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions against executive actions.
A ruling could redefine citizenship rights and alter the balance between executive authority and judicial oversight.

US Stocks

S&P 500 shakes off down day for tech heavyweights to finish higher

In a case of opposite day, the lesser-runs of the S&P 500 powered the market higher while the heavyweights broadly retreated on Thursday. The benchmark US stock index closed up 0.4%, the Nasdaq 100 eked out a 0.1% gain, and the Russell 2000 led the way with a 0.5% advance.

Walmart shares slipped as much as 3%, but ended the day flat as investors balanced the company’s solid Q1 earnings beat with the warning that price hikes are on the way.

Meta slumped to session lows late in the trading day after The Wall Street Journal reported that it’s delaying the release of its Llama 4 AI model.

Birkenstock shares climbed nearly 6% after the popular German footwear company beat earnings estimates for the second quarter and raised its full-year outlook.

Alibaba shares fell 7.5% after the Chinese e-commerce giant missed revenue and profit expectations for the fourth quarter amid ongoing consumer weakness in the country.

Coinbase’s stock fell 7% after the crypto exchange said it would pay between $180 million and $400 million to customers following a data breach from an “unknown threat actor.”

Shares of CoreWeave surged as much as 11% before closing down 2%, despite posting better-than-expected sales during its inaugural quarterly earnings report.