The Supreme Court opposes Trump’s take on Birthright Citizenship
The second Trump administration has been marked by a historic defiance against the U.S. Constitution, with a common pattern of rebelling against the laws and regulations that make up American democracy. There has been minimal resistance against the rebellion, but when the 14th Amendment—the right of every U.S.-born child to citizenship—came into question, justice prevailed. Despite the abuses of power that have challenged the democratic balance in our nation, the Supreme Court’s recent defense of the Constitution is a sign of hope for the integrity and democracy of the United States.
The 14th Amendment grants every child born in the United States U.S. citizenship. This means that any person “born or naturalized in the United States,…[is a ] citizen of the United States,” regardless of their parent’s nationality. The amendment was ratified in 1868, and despite being challenged various times in court, it has remained one of the many widely accepted moral codes of America. Since President Trump first ran for office in 2016, one of his key focuses has been targeting undocumented citizens. In January of 2025, at the beginning of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order challenging birthright citizenship. He argued that a child should not be entitled to citizenship if both parents are undocumented immigrants. Despite his efforts, this executive order has been blocked by several courts. On April 1, 2026, various organizations—such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, and the Democracy Defenders Fund—fought to defend children who would be denied citizenship at the Supreme Court. They posed the question: Is Trump’s executive order, in which he argues that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” applies only to parents who want to live in the U.S. permanently, aligned with the Constitution? Trump’s executive order attempts to discourage immigrants from journeying to the U.S. to create better lives for themselves. Yet, the point of the amendment is to protect children born in this country, as they have no control over where they are born. The Trump administration argued that children of parents without legal documentation in the U.S. should not be qualified to receive citizenship.
Though the Supreme Court’s final decision is not expected until June or July of 2026, the odds seem to be in favor of the Constitution and protecting the rights of children born in the U.S. During the oral hearing on April 1, 2026, even traditionally conservative judges were questioning Trump’s argument; Justice Barrett commented that Solicitor General’s reasoning was “not textual,” and Justice Kagan stating that ”every court is ruling against you [Trump’s lawyer].” Although Justice Alito provided some more open-minded feedback in response to the hearing, saying that modern “illegal immigration” was not a significant factor when that amendment was ratified, the overwhelming consensus was in opposition to Trump.
To maintain democracy, the branches of government must check each other’s power. Despite this court case being a traditional example of a “balance of power,” these democratic practices are becoming increasingly rare. Throughout Trump’s second term, it has become uncommon to see someone challenging the president when he acts against the Constitution. Most recently, Trump started a war in Iran without consulting Congress—an act that the president does not have the constitutional power to do. Additionally, Trump has cut funding from agencies that support diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) simply due to his own personal beliefs without Constitutional justification. Furthermore, Trump has instituted nationwide tariffs without proper legislation, which has harmed the economy. Trump now attempts to dictate who can and can not become a citizen. These examples all exhibit a common theme: dystopian-like abuses of power that have gone unchecked. The Supreme Court’s defiance of Trump’s wish shows hope for the justice system to prevail, despite abuses of executive power.
The constitutional rights of the U.S. are worth defending, as is the distinct power of the judicial branch to protect against any breaches of executive constitutional power. When the people who hold power fail to uphold their duty of protecting the constitution, integrity is lost. As ACLU representative Cecillia Wang stated, “We couldn’t be more confident that this unlawful, un-American executive order will be struck down.” When analyzing the past year and a half, it can be difficult to keep hope amidst the executive abuses of power. Yet, this recent Supreme Court hearing, regarding the 14th Amendment, may be the key to restoring U.S. democracy—protecting a precedent of acceptance, unity, and the American identity.
