TLDR: President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, which would stop the federal government from recognizing U.S. citizenship for children born in the U.S. if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. A coalition of 51 immigrants’ rights organizations has filed an amicus brief in Trump v. Barbara, a case now before the Supreme Court, arguing that the order violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court’s decision could reshape birthright citizenship as we’ve known it for over a century.
What Is Trump v. Barbara?
In January 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14160 directing federal agencies not to issue citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. when:
- The mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR) at the time of birth, OR
- The mother’s presence was lawful but temporary and the father was not a U.S. citizen or LPR at the time of birth.
The order quickly faced legal challenges, and the case has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court as Trump v. Barbara. The outcome of this case could fundamentally change who qualifies for U.S. citizenship at birth.
The Legal Foundation for Birthright Citizenship
Birthright citizenship (the principle that nearly all people born on U.S. soil are automatically U.S. citizens) has deep constitutional and legal roots.
The Fourteenth Amendment
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…” This language has been the bedrock of birthright citizenship since 1868.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
The Supreme Court addressed this issue directly in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, ruling that a child born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents was a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. This case arose during a period when Chinese immigrants were explicitly excluded from naturalization, yet the Court held that birth on U.S. soil established citizenship regardless of parental status. It remains the Court’s leading precedent on the subject, and is now squarely at issue in Trump v. Barbara.
What the Amicus Brief Argues
A coalition of 51 immigrants’ rights organizations filed an amicus brief (a “friend of the court” brief) urging the Supreme Court to reaffirm the longstanding interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. Their arguments center on three main areas:
1. Harm to Vulnerable Populations
The organizations argue that restricting birthright citizenship would disproportionately harm some of the most vulnerable individuals in the immigration system.
- Stateless Individuals
There are an estimated 200,000+ stateless individuals living in the U.S., people who are not recognized as nationals by any country. Because there is no dedicated legal pathway for stateless individuals in the U.S. immigration system, birthright citizenship has historically been the primary safety net for children born in the U.S. to stateless parents. Removing that protection could condemn those children to statelessness as well, making it harder for them to open bank accounts, access higher education, or work legally.
- Children of Asylum Seekers and Refugees
Asylum seekers often spend years in the U.S. while their cases are decided. During that time, children may be born whose citizenship could be left uncertain under the Executive Order. This is particularly troubling for parents who fled violence or persecution and cannot safely contact authorities in their home country to establish nationality for their child.
- Survivors of Domestic Violence
Some of the most serious concerns raised in the brief involve immigrant survivors of domestic abuse. Congress created protections like the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) precisely because abusive partners have historically weaponized immigration status as a tool of control. If a child’s citizenship depends on cooperation from an abusive parent who is a U.S. citizen or LPR, that creates a dangerous power imbalance and could deter victims from leaving abusive relationships.
- LGBTQI Families
The brief also flags serious ambiguities for LGBTQI families. The Executive Order uses the term “biological progenitor” without defining it, raising complicated questions for same-sex couples, transgender parents, and families formed through IVF or surrogacy. Without clear definitions, these families face real uncertainty about whether their U.S.-born children would be recognized as citizens.
2. Potential Violations of International Law
The brief argues that restricting birthright citizenship could put the U.S. in conflict with several international agreements it has ratified or endorsed, including:
- The 1951 Refugee Convention, which establishes protections for individuals fleeing persecution
- The United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), which prevents returning individuals to places where they face torture
- The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which addresses fundamental rights including nationality
While the U.S. has sometimes taken limited views of how international law applies domestically, these arguments add weight to the broader claim that the Executive Order oversteps established legal norms.
3. Undefined Terms and Implementation Problems
The brief also points to a practical problem: the Executive Order introduces new terminology without defining it. Terms like “unlawfully present,” “lawful but temporary,” and “biological progenitor” are left undefined, creating confusion about who would and would not qualify for citizenship under the new rules. Without clear definitions or a formal rulemaking process, the order could create administrative chaos and expose affected individuals to inconsistent treatment.
What Does This Mean for Families and Employers?
The Supreme Court has not yet issued its ruling in Trump v. Barbara. However, lower courts have already blocked the Executive Order from taking effect while litigation is ongoing, meaning birthright citizenship remains the law of the land for now.
That said, the Court’s eventual ruling could have far-reaching implications. Here is what to keep in mind:
- Families with children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents should monitor this case closely.
- Employers should be aware that changes to citizenship rules could affect workforce eligibility documentation processes.
- Anyone with questions about citizenship, naturalization, or the impact of this Executive Order on their specific situation should speak with an experienced immigration attorney.
A Constitutional Question With Real Consequences
Trump v. Barbara is one of the most significant immigration cases to reach the Supreme Court in decades. At its core, it asks whether a President can unilaterally reinterpret a constitutional provision that has been understood the same way for over 125 years. The amicus brief filed by 51 immigrants’ rights organizations makes clear that the stakes go far beyond legal theory. Real families, real children, and some of the most vulnerable people in the country are directly affected.
Berardi Immigration Law will continue to monitor this case as it progresses and provide updates as the Court’s decision approaches. If you have questions about how this or any other immigration development may affect you, your family, or your business, we encourage you to reach out to our team.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Is birthright citizenship still in effect right now?
Yes. Courts have issued injunctions blocking Executive Order 14160 from taking effect while the case is being litigated. As of the publication of this article, birthright citizenship remains the law. Children born in the U.S. are still recognized as U.S. citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Q: Could the Supreme Court actually end birthright citizenship?
The Supreme Court could uphold, limit, or strike down the Executive Order. If the Court rules in favor of the administration, it could significantly narrow who qualifies for birthright citizenship; something that would represent a major departure from over a century of constitutional interpretation. However, it would also be possible for the Court to strike down the order without addressing the broader question, or to issue a narrow ruling that leaves room for future challenges.
Q: What should I do if I’m worried about my child’s citizenship status?
If you have concerns about your child’s citizenship or the impact of this case on your family, the best step is to consult with an experienced immigration attorney. Each family’s situation is unique, and a qualified attorney can help you understand your rights and options based on your specific circumstances. Berardi Immigration Law is here to help, contact our office for a consultation.
Ready to have Berardi on your side?
Whether you’re a business looking to hire or a professional hoping to relocate, immigration law can be complicated. But you don’t have to do it alone. Put our experience to work for you.