In a case with profound implications for immigration law, executive power, and judicial authority, the US Supreme Court is scheduled today to hear arguments in Trump v. CASA. The case stems from a controversial executive order issued earlier this year by President Donald Trump, aiming to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and non-resident foreign nationals. The case also raises broader constitutional questions about the power of lower federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions.
Table of Contents
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide one of the most consequential immigration and constitutional law cases in recent history. At the center of the legal firestorm is a Trump administration order that seeks to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents — a move that challenges over a century of legal precedent and the foundational interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Background: Executive Order 14160 and the 14th Amendment
On January 22, 2025, just days after beginning his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14160. The directive seeks to reinterpret the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to grant automatic U.S. citizenship to nearly all individuals born on American soil. Specifically, the order denies citizenship to babies born in the United States if their parents are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.
The executive order challenges the long-standing precedent set in the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship regardless of the parents’ immigration status.
Legal challenges followed swiftly. Advocacy groups, immigrant families, and state governments filed lawsuits across several jurisdictions, including Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. Federal judges in these cases issued nationwide injunctions blocking the order’s implementation, prompting the federal government to appeal.
The Core Issues: Citizenship and Judicial Authority
The Supreme Court’s review in Trump v. CASA centers on two constitutional issues:
- Is Executive Order 14160 consistent with the 14th Amendment?
- Do lower courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions against federal policies?
The Trump administration argues that the order merely clarifies the original intent of the 14th Amendment, which they claim was never meant to apply to children of undocumented immigrants. They also assert that nationwide injunctions create chaos by allowing a single district judge to halt national policy across all 50 states.
Opponents argue that the executive order is a clear violation of constitutional protections. “This order undermines the most fundamental American principle — that anyone born here is entitled to equal rights under the law,” said Nicholas Barron, legal director of CASA, the lead respondent in the case. “It’s also an alarming power grab that seeks to weaken the judiciary’s ability to act as a check on executive overreach.”
Nationwide Injunctions: A Broader Legal Battle
Beyond the question of citizenship, the case could dramatically alter how federal courts operate. Nationwide injunctions have been used by both liberal and conservative judges to halt federal policies on issues ranging from immigration to healthcare to environmental regulation.
Legal scholars are divided. Supporters of the practice say that nationwide injunctions ensure consistency in the law and protect individuals across the country from potentially unconstitutional policies. Critics argue that such injunctions encourage forum shopping and give too much power to individual district courts.
Chief Justice John Roberts has previously expressed concern about the growing use of nationwide injunctions. Observers believe the Court may be inclined to restrict their use, regardless of how it rules on the citizenship issue itself.
What’s at Stake: Immigration, Identity, and Federal Power
If the Court upholds the executive order and weakens the authority of nationwide injunctions, the effects could be seismic.
- For immigration law: Children born in some U.S. states may be denied citizenship based on their parents’ immigration status, creating a fragmented and unequal system across the country.
- For the judicial system: Federal courts may lose a key tool for checking executive overreach, leading to delayed or inconsistent enforcement of constitutional protections.
- For American society: The ruling could alter the very definition of who is considered an American citizen, affecting millions of families and future generations.
According to the Migration Policy Institute, an estimated 250,000 children are born annually in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants. These children currently enjoy full citizenship rights. That status could be revoked if the executive order is upheld.
Public Reactions and Political Ramifications
The case has drawn intense national attention. Immigration advocates have organized protests outside the Supreme Court, while conservative groups have praised the administration for “restoring constitutional order.”
Former President Barack Obama criticized the order in a recent statement: “We don’t get to pick and choose who is American based on fear or politics. Our Constitution is clear, and it must be upheld.”
With the 2026 midterm elections approaching, the outcome of this case could become a defining issue for both parties. It touches on the ongoing national debate over immigration, race, and the limits of presidential authority.
Looking Ahead
A decision in Trump v. CASA is expected by June. The Court’s ruling could not only reshape the future of immigration policy but also redefine the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches.
For now, the nation watches closely as nine justices deliberate the meaning of citizenship in the United States — and whether the promise of equality under the Constitution still holds for all who are born here.