Trump's "desperate end around" the Supreme Court with new attack on birthright citizenship; civil rights groups vow to fight back

SCREEN CAPTURE / YOUTUBE

The ACLU's Cecilia Wang defended birthright citiznship at the Supreme Court.

Just five weeks after getting slapped down by the nation’s highest court, the Trump regime is launching a fresh offensive in its ongoing war against immigrants and who gets to be an "American."

On August 6, Donald Trump signed two new executive orders targeting birthright citizenship. The move is a transparent attempt to bypass the 14th Amendment by creating a tiered system of citizenship and labeling specific foreign individuals — a move civil rights advocates are calling a desperate end run around constitutional law.

Trump's overly broad Day 1 executive order was decisively struck down in a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling (Trump v. Barbara) issued last June. Now, the White House is trying a narrower, more insidious approach.

Round Two: The new executive orders

Trump’s latest strategy splits the policy into two surgical strikes designed to test the limits of executive power:

The first order carves out citizenship exclusions, dictating that children born on U.S. soil to foreign diplomats, embassy staff, designated "alien enemies," or parents accused of immigration fraud will no longer receive automatic citizenship. It also lays the groundwork to strip birthright citizenship in US territories if Congress provides legislative backing.

The second order commands federal agencies to actively block "birth tourism" by tightening visa restrictions on pregnant foreign visitors and preventing agencies from issuing travel visas under those conditions.

White House immigration henchman Stephen Miller and regime enablers maintain they are on firm legal footing, banking on the idea that regulating visas and defining national security terminology falls under executive authority over immigration.

Civil rghts groups fire back

The backlash from civil rights organizations was instantaneous, fierce, and unified across the progressive ecosystem. Advocates warning that these directives seek to create a vulnerable, unprotected legal class were quick to point out that a president cannot simply rewrite the supreme law of the land.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) whose top attorney Cecilia Wang successfully argued against the regime's lawyers before the Supreme Court in Trump v. Barbara, joined the fight, promising that this latest piece of executive overreach will meet the exact same fate in federal court as the last one. 

“The Supreme Court already decided this issue: Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. "No additional executive order can change the meaning of the Constitution. Any executive order that tries to rewrite birthright citizenship will meet the same fate as the last one.”

The Asian Law Caucus (ALC), co-counsel in Trump v. Barbara and the nation’s first Asian American legal and civil rights organization, issued a blistering condemnation. Executive Director Aarti Kohli stated:

“This is a cynical distraction from a flailing administration – and AAPI and immigrant families would pay the price. The Constitution – as the Supreme Court already affirmed in June – does not allow the government to pick and choose which children born in this country belong. This is a desperate end run around the Court’s decision based on made-up legal theories. The administration already lost once and it will lose again.

“Asian Law Caucus fought this administration’s attacks on birthright citizenship from day one. Our work carries forward the legacy of Fred Korematsu, whose family, like thousands of Japanese Americans, was branded a so-called “alien enemy” in 1942 and whose conviction we helped overturn in 1983. Today’s unlawful orders revive that same label to decide which babies count as American. Our commitment is clear: we will continue to defend birthright citizenship and protect the AAPI and immigrant families these actions target.”

Frontline community reactions

The ACLU and Asian Law Caucus were not alone in quickly condemning Trump's newest executive orders.

Stop AAPI Hate Coalition: The advocacy network warned that the administration’s new directives will explicitly fuel racial profiling, visa discrimination, and xenophobia. Representatives from the Stop AAPI Hate Action Center noted that drawing arbitrary lines around which parents "belong" invites dangerous local scrutiny for anyone who looks or sounds Asian, regardless of their actual legal status.

APIAVote: Leading voting rights and civic engagement groups stressed that the administration's "made-up legal theories" are a desperate play to suppress the growing political power and demographic footprint of communities of color.

Asian Americans Advancing Justice: Legal and civil rights affiliates expressed outrage that the executive branch is trying to overrule a definitive, weeks-old Supreme Court ruling. They criticized the orders as a "cynical distraction" meant to instill fear in immigrant neighborhoods, discourage families from seeking medical care, and disrupt local communities.

Birthright citizenship is simply defined in the US Constitution.

View from the edge

For Asian American, Pacific Islander (AAPI), and immigrant communities, resurrecting the term "alien enemies" isn't just an abstract legal debate — it is a visceral echo of historical exclusion acts and wartime targeting.

From the bedrock protection secured in 1898 by a Chinese American in United States v. Wong Kim Ark to the dark chapter of World War II internment, marginalized communities have had to repeatedly defend their right to belong. Drawing arbitrary lines around which parents "belong" invites dangerous racial profiling and xenophobia for anyone who looks or sounds foreign, regardless of their actual legal status.

Legal experts agree that while the White House is attempting to use narrower, security-focused language to dodge judicial review, denying citizenship to any child born on US soil directly violates the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Activists, civil rights coalitions, and legal teams are already preparing their briefs to halt the implementation of these orders before they can take root.

No matter how many executive orders the White House drafts, the fundamental law of the land remains unchanged. Trump just doesn't get it. He's not a king.

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. If you find this perspective interesting, please share.

Trump thwarted, birthright citizenship upheld by Supreme Court

CHINATOWN / FACEBOOK

San Francisco's Chinatown unveiled its newest mural hooring Wong Kim Ark.

The historic 128-year-old legacy of a San Francisco Chinatown cook has been vindicated, as the US Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to reject a white nationalist-fueled executive order, firmly upholding constitutional birthright citizenship for all children born on American soil.

For Norman Wong and Sandra Wong, the great-grandchildren of civil rights icon Wong Kim Ark, the high court's decision was a moment of profound relief—and a stark reminder of the perpetual fight against the "forever foreigner" stereotype that still haunts Asian Americans.

The high-stakes legal battle erupted after Donald Trump tried to unilaterally dismantle the 14th Amendment. His executive order sought to strip automatic citizenship from children born in the US to temporary visitors and undocumented immigrants—a move that would have upended the lives of over 250,000 babies born each year.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts made it clear that a president cannot rewrite the Constitution by executive decree. The court squarely reaffirmed the very precedent established by the Wongs' ancestor in the landmark 1898 case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Trump vows to continue fight to restrict immigration

Celebrate while you can. Although the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, other crucial Supreme Court victories for the administration are adversely affecting millions of legal visa-holders from Asia, the country's fastest-growing immigrant group.

The fact that the SCOTUS ruling wasn't unanimous in what legal experts thought would be a slam-dunk gives the Trump regime an open door to achieve what his weaponized DOJ sought to do.

Trump criticized the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling striking down his executive order on birthright citizenship, calling the decision "too bad for our Country" but pivoting immediately to demand a legislative workaround through Congress.

In a series of posts on Truth Social, Trump expressed deep disappointment, stating that while the court upheld the policy, "we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation."

He urged Congress to begin drafting legislation "today" to dismantle birthright citizenship, labeling the practice "expensive and unfair to our country" and promising lawmakers his "Complete and Total Support!."

Though Trump lost his fight against the 14th Amendment's birthright protections, immigration experts warn that the cumulative effect of the other Supreme Court decisions will heavily disrupt the lives of millions of lawful visa holders and employment-based immigrants.

Trump achieved his broader agenda against immigrants of color through the following wins at the Supreme Court: 

• TPS Terminations: In Mullin v. Doe, the Court ruled 6-3 to bar judicial review of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) determinations. This greenlit the termination of TPS for Haiti and Syria, immediately placing roughly 350,000 work-authorized individuals at risk of deportation and the loss of their legal status. While the case specifically involved Haitian and Syrian immigrants, the ruling has broad implications for all immigrants, including those from Asia, such as Nepal, Burma (Myanmar) and Afghanistan.

• Asylum Restrictions: In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court determined that migrants attempting to seek asylum while standing outside the US border are not considered to have legally "arrived" in the country.

• Lawful Permanent Resident Admissibility: In Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau, the Court ruled 6-3 that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can defer the inspection of Lawful Permanent Residents who committed crimes until after their conviction, making it significantly easier to deport green card holders.

View from the edge

Immigrants from Asia make up the fastest-growing minority and racial demographic in the US, and they are disproportionately affected by the broader shifting legal landscape. While ending birthright citizenship would have primarily affected the US-born children of undocumented Latinos, studies have shown that the fastest relative growth of "unauthorized" births would have occurred among Asian families who are lawfully in the US on student and work visas. Many Asian immigrants face massive green card backlogs — often stretching over a decade — and thus rely on these temporary, nonimmigrant statuses for long periods.

The original battle began when Wong Kim Ark, a cook born in San Francisco, traveled to China and was blocked from re-entering his own country by racist immigration officials wielding the Chinese Exclusion Act. He refused to back down, forcing the Supreme Court to declare in 1898 that birth on U.S. soil equals citizenship, period.

In a poetic twist of continuity, the case defending our foundational rights was argued before the high court by ACLU national director Cecillia Wang — an American-born daughter of Taiwanese immigrants. Norman Wong, a 76-year-old Bay Area resident and veteran activist of the 1970s Third World Liberation Front at UC Berkeley, noted how "sweet" it was to see a Chinese American woman who herself is a US citizen by virtue of birthright citizenship, leading the defense at the frontlines of anti-Asian discrimination.

Norman Wong spent the morning of the decision at his Bay Area home, eating a bowl of oatmeal and anxiously tracking the news. Speaking with AsAmNews, he emphasized that this wasn't just a win for one community.

“Today's ruling shows that his victory remains as important now as it was in 1898... We’re fighting for rights for all Americans because these are fundamental rights.”

His sister, Sandra Wong, expressed disbelief that they even had to fight this battle in 2026. "This is Wong Kim Ark's legacy," she stated. "It is our legacy."

Just weeks before this modern victory, a vibrant new mural honoring Wong Kim Ark was unveiled and blessed with a lion dance in San Francisco's Chinatown. It stands as a permanent reminder that Asian Americans have never been passive bystanders in the story of American democracy—we built the legal bedrock that protects everyone.

"His fight was not just his own, it was for me and for generations to come," Norman Wong said in an earlier speech at a rally outside the Supreme Court building. "This is Wong Kim Ark's legacy. This is my legacy. It is our legacy, and now it is our responsibility to protect it for our children and for generations yet to come."

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. If you find this perspective interesting, please repost.

Looming citizenship crisis faces AANHPI communities awaiting SCOTUS ruling

APIA VOTE

Asian Americans at the Supreme Court protest Donald Trump's attempt
to do away with birthright citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment

With the United States' 250th anniversary approaching, birthright citizenship, a cornerstone of the Constitution, is in danger of being stripped away by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. 

If they rule to end this constitutional right the fallout will be catastrophic: a staggering 6.4 million children born in the United States, including could be stripped of legal status by 2050. 

Within the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) community, the impact is uniquely devastating. The number of undocumented Asian births is projected to experience a massive, five-fold explosion —driven by families who followed every rule on work and student visas, only to watch their US-born children rendered stateless or unauthorized.

After hearing arguments this Spring, SCOTUS is expected to issue their ruling as early as today (June 18) or later this month, just in time for July 4th.

Deciding who belongs

For generations, the rule of the land was simple and beautifully egalitarian: if you are born here, you are one of us. It didn’t matter where your parents came from, what language they spoke, or what their paperwork looked like. The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was built precisely to ensure that America could never again create a permanent, multi-generational underclass.

RELATED: ACLU gives strong defense of birthright citizenship

 Now, the conservative legal apparatus is attempting to rewrite that history. They argue that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" requires a child's parents to owe direct "political allegiance" to the United States—essentially engineering a system where citizenship is inherited by legal status rather than guaranteed by birthplace.

Defenders of the Constitution — led by civil rights champions like the American Civil Liberties Union — are hitting back with clear, historical substance. Anyone standing on U.S. soil is bound by US laws and subject to US jurisdiction. It is a standard we inherited from English common law and enshrined after the Civil War to permanently bury the racist legacy of the Dred Scott decision.

Looming crisis for the AANHPI community

This isn’t an abstract debate for law school textbooks; it is a direct threat to our families. While the largest absolute number of people affected would be Latino, recent research from Penn State University highlights a terrifying twist: Asians would see the sharpest relative growth in unauthorized births of any immigrant group.

• THE VISA TRAP: The policy uniquely penalizes Asian immigrants residing legally on temporary work (like H-1B) or student visas. Their children, born in American hospitals, would suddenly be denied a defined legal status.

• MATH OF EXCLUSION: The data projects a chilling 41 unauthorized births per 1,000 Asians without permanent legal status—a rate more than double the projected trajectory for Latino communities.

• AN INVISIBLE WALL: Families who have done everything "the right way" would find their American-born children barred from higher education, locked out of professional careers, and stripped of basic equality before the law.

The possible end to birthright citizenship would pose a steep relative risk to the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community. While Latinos face the largest raw numbers, AAPIs experience the highest relative impact. 

STOP AAPI HATE

A recent study by Stop AAPI Hate projects that if birthright citizenship ends, the number of Asian "unauthorized" births could increase five-fold, with a rate of 41 unauthorized births per 1,000 unauthorized Asian residents—more than double the rate for Latinos.

This disproportionate impact exists because the policy primarily targets not just undocumented immigrants, but also children of temporary visa holders (such as H-1B workers and international students), from countries like India, China, and the Philippines. In total, approximately 3.6 million Asian Americans—including those who are undocumented, seeking asylum, or on temporary work and student visas—live under the shadow of this legal battle.

Erasing our past

What makes this conservative push so bitter for our community is that we already fought this battle — and won it — over a century ago. In 1898, the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark explicitly settled this issue. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents. When the government tried to deny his re-entry to his own country, the Supreme Court ruled that his birth on US soil made him an unconditional citizen, regardless of his parents' status.

By entertaining executive actions to bypass the 14th Amendment, the current conservative-majority SCOTUS isn’t just looking at the future — they are trying to erase our past and at the same time, revive their pre-Civil Rights Act past. They are threatening to turn a system built on equality into a dangerous, two-tiered caste system.

As the high court deliberates, the core identity of what it means to be "Born in the USA" hanging in the balance. For millions of future AANHPI kids, the edge we are looking over has never been n steeper.

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. If you find this perspective interesting, please repost.

A closer look: Cecilia Wang presented a "master class" in defense of birthright citizenship

Cecilia Wang emerges into prominence for her performance at SCOTUS.

During the high-stakes showdown at the Supreme Court on April 1, 2026, ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang didn't just show up to argue; she showed up to defend the very fabric of American identity. 

In the landmark case of Trump v. Barbara, Wang delivered a masterclass in constitutional law, standing firm against the administration’s attempt to dismantle birthright citizenship.

The energy in the chamber was electric as Wang anchored her argument in a simple, undeniable truth: the 14th Amendment means what it says. She told the justices that the American rule is clear — everyone born here is a citizen alike. It was a powerful opening that reminded the court that this principle was designed to be beyond the reach of any temporary political whim.

Wang clarified that this phrase in the 14th Amendment, based on English Common Law, applies to virtually everyone "born on US soil." She argued it excludes only a "closed set of exceptions," such as children of foreign diplomats or invading soldiers, who are subject to another sovereign's jurisdiction.

        RELATED: Justices skeptical on Trump regime's arguments

For Wang, this wasn't just a legal theory; as the daughter of immigrants from Taiwan  and a birthright citizen herself, her defense of the 14th Amendment carried a personal resonance that felt deeply authentic.

The legal battle centers on an executive order attempting to exclude children born in the US to certain non-citizen groups — including those who are here on special visas and DACA recipients — from automatic citizenship.

Wang’s performance was widely hailed by legal observers as a "masterclass" in constitutional law. Although well-known in legal circles, she is not one to grab the spotlight. From relative obscurity from her April 1 SCOTUS appearance, she emerges as a real heroic, brilliant figure. Her arguments focused on the bedrock principles of the 14th Amendment and the historical precedent that has defined American citizenship for over 150 years. 

“Cecillia Wang is one of the country’s great litigators, which is why she’s the ACLU’s top lawyer," said aid ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.

The reception from the bench suggests Wang’s strategy hit the mark. Even some of the conservative justices seemed skeptical of the government’s "quirky" legal theories. 

Chief Justice Roberts notably pushed back on the idea that modern issues like "birth tourism" should change how we interpret the Constitution. Meanwhile, Solicitor General D. John Sauer faced a frosty reception, with Justices Roberts and Gorsuch questioning the logic of the administration’s stance.

While Wang admitted she would be happy to win on statutory grounds, she made it clear that a firm constitutional ruling is what the country needs for long-term stability.

The legal community is buzzing, with many observers noting that the ACLU’s team made up of co-counsels from several justice advocates including the Asian Law Caucus, seems to have the upper hand, but that doesn't guarantee a win for the Constitution. The conservative majority of SCOTUS is infamous for ignoring legal precedents and siding with wishes of the Trump regime such as right for women to determine their health choices, affirmative action and the weakening of voting rights.

For now, we hold our breath as we wait until the end of June 2026 for the final word.

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. 

Supreme Court questions Trump regime's arguments against 'birthright citizenship'

Hundreds of people demonstrated at the Supreme Court.

ANALYSIS

It was a scene unlike any in the 237-year history of the Supreme Court. On April 1, the high court heard arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case that could dismantle the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. But the real story wasn't just the law — it was the atmosphere.

In a move that sent shockwaves through the capital, Donald Trump personally attended the arguments. Sitting in the front row, his presence felt less like a show of interest and more like a physical weight on the proceedings. To many observers, it was a blatant attempt to intimidate the Justices on their own turf—a "hush" falling over the chamber as the Commander-in-Chief stared down the bench.

The plaintiffs

The plaintiffs in Trump v. Barbara are a nationwide class of children born on US soil to immigrant parents, represented by three named individuals — Barbara, Susan, and Mark — who are using pseudonyms to protect their identities. They are challenging a Trump administration executive order aimed at denying birthright citizenship.

• Barbara: A Honduran asylum applicant living in the US since 2024, who feared retaliation.
• Susan: A Taiwanese citizen residing in Utah who was on a student visa when her child was born in April 2025.
• Mark: A Brazilian applicant for permanent residence living in Florida whose wife is undocumented and gave birth to their son in March 2025.

General Counsel D. John Sauer led the charge for the Trump regime, arguing that birthright citizenship is a "gift" that has been misapplied. He contended that "subject to the jurisdiction" implies a "political allegiance" that children of undocumented immigrants simply don't possess.

Sauer’s argument hit a disastrous snag when Justice Sotomayor pressed him on how this "allegiance" test would apply to Native Americans. In a stunning gaffe, Sauer appeared to stumble over the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, momentarily suggesting that the citizenship of indigenous peoples might also be subject to federal "re-evaluation" under his new criteria. 

The courtroom went cold; it was a moment that laid bare the radical nature of the government's position. 

Cecilia Wang, representing the plaintiffs for the ACLU, wasn't deterred by the presidential glare. She grounded her argument in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark precedent and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

"The Constitution does not have an 'unless' clause for those the President finds inconvenient," Wang argued. Outside the court, she was even more blunt: "This isn’t just an attack on immigrants; it’s an attack on the very definition of what it means to be American. You cannot rewrite the 14th Amendment with a Sharpie."

Skeptical justices

Justices across the ideological spectrum, including the activist conservatives who have been accused of being a rubber stamp for Trump policies, appeared broadly skeptical of the administration’s position.

Chief Justice Roberts pushed back against the "new world" argument, noting that while the world may change, "we have the same Constitution."

When Sauer pointed out that the US is one of the few countries to have birthright citizenship, Justice Kavanaugh questioned “(why) we try to interpret American law with American precedent based on American history.” “[W]hy should we be thinking about,” he asked, the “many other countries in the world (that) don’t have this?”

Justice Sotomayor expressed concern over the potential for the order’s logic to be used retroactively in the future, despite current administration claims.

Neil Gorsuch expressed disdain for the government's reliance on "Roman law sources," which he noted were far removed from the 1868 intent of the 14th Amendment.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the feasibility of the order, asking how the government would adjudicate "intent to stay" at the time of birth, noting that such a standard could be difficult to apply even to U.S. citizens.

Justices across the political spectrum frequently emphasized the "plain meaning" of the Constitution, viewing the Citizenship Clause as straightforward and unequivocal.

After arguing in behalf of birthright citizenship, the ACLU's Ceclia Wang addressed the demonstrators outside the SCOTUS building.

Views from the edge

If you strip away the high-minded talk about "jurisdiction," the view from the edge is clear: this is about racial demographics, power, and the ballot box.

Look closer at the broader strategy. This isn't just about an obscure legal clause; it’s a foundational piece of a larger effort to reshape the American electorate thereby appeasing the White supremacists who form a vocal segment of Trump's followers. 

The math is simple:

New immigrants and their first-generation children have historically leaned Democratic. By challenging the citizenship of those born here, the Trump administration isn't just "securing the border"; they are effectively attempting to prune the future voter rolls before they even exist.

This fits a pattern we’ve seen with the push for citizenship questions on the census and tighter registration rules. If you can change who counts as a citizen, you change who gets to vote, how districts are drawn, and who holds power for the next fifty years.

By framing birthright citizenship as a "loophole," the administration is signaling that American identity is a privilege to be granted by the state, rather than a right guaranteed by the soil. We see this philosophy in action already: White South Africans are welcomed with open arms but those from so-called "S--thole countries," are being deported.

While the administration frames this as a "national security" necessity, the reality is a raw political calculation. They aren't just trying to stop people from coming in; they're trying to make sure that those who do stay never get a seat at the table.

As Trump exited the courtroom, the legal community was left to process a day where the line between executive power and judicial independence was stretched to its breaking point. The ruling is expected in late June or early July, just in time for the "American experiment" to celebrate 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. 

Who is Cecilia Wang, the lawyer who will defend 'birthright citizenship' at the Supreme Court

Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union and a second-generation American, will argue against Donald Trump's attempt to get rid of birthright citizenship in the landmark case, Trump v. Barbara, at the Supreme Court tomorrow (April 1).

“This is the case of the century — the stakes are unfathomably high. Can a president of the United States unilaterally end birthright citizenship by executive order — overriding more than 150 years of settled constitutional law, and redefining who is recognized as American at birth? Absolutely not,”said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.

“Cecillia Wang is one of the country’s great litigators, which is why she’s the ACLU’s top lawyer. She has decades of experience fighting government overreach, including two trial victories against Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s racial profiling and contempt of court. Now, she’s up against a more formidable adversary as this case is a linchpin to Donald Trump and Stephen Miller’s agenda.

        FYI: Go deeper into the arguments for birthright citizenship

"Our clients are in the best possible hands with Cecillia Wang and this incredible co-counsel team presenting arguments — they will do all it takes to make sure birthright citizenship remains a cornerstone of our democracy.”

Wang was born in Oregon, the daughter of immigrants from Taiwan.  Her own citizenship was made possible by the repeal of racially discriminatory immigration laws through the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, and by the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship guarantee. Those reforms grew directly out of the anti-slavery and civil rights movements and expanded who has citizenship and belonging in the United States.

The groups will argue that the administration’s assault on birthright citizenship — the legal principle guaranteed by the 14th Amendment that every baby born in the United States is a U.S. citizen — flouts the Constitution’s dictates, longstanding Supreme Court precedent, a statute passed by Congress, and fundamental American values.

“It’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director of Asian Law Caucus, and co-counsel.

“Every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional. If implemented, this policy would force all parents — including U.S. citizens — to prove their immigration status just to get a birth certificate or Social Security number for their baby, inevitably leading to racial profiling based on names, appearance, or accent.”

Wang personal history as a second-generation Asian American which informs her advocacy.

Earlier in her 20-year career, Wang directed the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, which won cases involving immigration detention, racial profiling, and discriminatory state and federal immigration laws.

During the first Trump administration, she worked on successful challenges to the Muslim ban, family separation policies, and the attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. She also led successful litigation against former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” said Wang. “For over 150 years, it has been the law and our national tradition that everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen from birth. The federal courts have unanimously held that President Trump’s executive order is contrary to the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision from 1898, and a law enacted by Congress. We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”

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. 

Supreme Court to hear case questioning "birthright citizenship."

Hannah Lu in front the United States Supreme Court Building.

UPDATED: Earlier versions had an incorrect date for the hearing. April 1 is the correct day SCOTUS will hear the arguments for and against birthright citizenship.

Get ready, because the Supreme Court is about to dive into the ultimate constitutional cage match. On April 1, 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, Cecilia Wang, the National Legal Director of the ACLU, is presenting the oral arguments to the Supreme Court on 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 majority 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.