Supreme Court to hear case questioning "birthright citizenship."

Hannah Lu in front the United States Supreme Court Building.

Get ready, because the Supreme Court is about to dive into the ultimate constitutional cage match. Today, the nine Justices will hear oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, the case that could officially end birthright citizenship as we know it.

Here’s the skinny: Day one of his second term, Trump signed an executive order saying, "If your parents aren't citizens or green card holders, you don’t get a US passport just for being born here." It’s been winding through the courts ever since, but now it’s hitting the big stage.

The daughter of immigrants from Taiwan, Cecillia Wang, the National Legal Director of the ACLU, is presenting the oral arguments to the Supreme Court on today (April 1) defending birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara. She is arguing on behalf of challengers, including the ACLU , Stop AAPI Hate, Asian Americans Advancing Justice and NAACP LDF,

As of March 30, 2026, every lower court that has considered challenges to President Trump's January 2025 executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship has ruled it unconstitutional. These courts have consistently found that the order violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. 

Key lower court rulings

1. US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit: A divided panel in Trump v. Washington ruled Trump's executive order invalid, stating it "contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment." ruling the 1898 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark guarantee citizenship to almost everyone born on US soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status.

2. US District Court for the District of New Hampshire: Judge Joseph N. Laplante issued a preliminary injunction and provisionally certified a nationwide class of babies born on or after February 20, 2025, who would be denied citizenship under the order.
District Courts in Washington State and Maryland: Federal judges in these states also entered injunctions blocking the order early in the litigation process.

While lower courts have blocked the order on its merits, the Supreme Court tried to assuage Trump's anger by issuing a procedural ruling in June 2025 (Trump v. CASA, Inc.) that curtailed the use of "universal" or nationwide injunctions by district courts. This temporarily allowed the order to take effect in states that had not challenged it, but it did not address the constitutionality of the order itself.

This isn't just a legal tweak; it’s a full-on identity crisis for the country. If the Court sides with the administration, it rewrites the rules for millions of families. If they toss it, it’s a massive blow to the "America First" legal agenda.

The ACLU's Cecilia Wang will defend birthright citizenship in front of the Supreme Court.

Predicting SCOTUS

I've given up any hope that the six conservative justices will find a spine to make a ruling based on precedent and the Constitution instead of bending over backwards  and twisting rational thinking in order to give Trump what he wants.

However, while the 6-3 conservative majority has frequently backed the Trump administration's broad executive powers, their commitment to originalism and textualism — the idea that the law means exactly what it says — could actually be the administration's undoing here.

Lower court judges — including many Republican appointees—have uniformly blocked the order, calling it a direct violation of the 14th Amendment. If the conservative justices follow their own logic on "original meaning," the administration faces a very uphill battle to get five votes for a total reinterpretation of citizenship.

The conservative bloc has handed Trump wins on deportations and ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS). However, those cases focused on statutes (laws passed by Congress) where the President has massive leeway.

The difference is that birthright citizenship is a Constitutional right. Overturning United States v. Wong Kim Ark would be a much heavier lift than just approving a new border policy.

View from the edge

If SCOTUS rules against birthright citizenship an estimated 255,000 children born in the U.S. each year could be denied citizenship if the order is upheld. Projections suggest this could add 4.8 million non-citizen children to the population by 2045.

Many Asian families arrive on professional visas and wait decades for green cards. Under this order, children born during that long wait could be rendered "stateless" or left in legal limbo, denied Social Security numbers and the basic "right to have rights." Immigrants with J-1 visas who have children born while working in the US as nurses, teachers, oil workers or crews of ships would be in the same predicament.

If a generation of our children is denied citizenship, they lose the right to vote and run for office. It’s a direct hit to the growing political power of the AAPI community.
Affected children could face "irreparable harm," including vulnerability to deportation, loss of access to critical health care and nutrition, and legal "statelessness."

SCOTUS is expected to rule on the case in June. The Supreme Court's decision will determine what the United States will be like on its 250th birthday. 

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge.