Birthright Citizenship: Is It Still Guaranteed By The Constitution?

Birthright citizenship—the principle that all individuals born on U.S. soil are granted American citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment—was at the center of arguments heard by the Supreme Court recently. While many cases before the Court focus on technical legal questions, this one strikes at the core of American constitutional identity. It challenges whether a right that has stood for more than a century still protects everyone born in the United States, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.

At issue is not a minor adjustment to immigration policy, but a fundamental redefinition of citizenship itself. The Trump administration argues that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to children born to undocumented immigrants. This claim runs counter to over a century of legal precedent and, if upheld, would set a precedent for narrowing who qualifies as an American at birth.

The Broader Threat: Eroding the Rule of Law

This legal challenge does not exist in isolation. It is part of a broader pattern of attempts to consolidate executive power. The administration is also seeking to limit the ability of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions, and prominent figures in the same political circle have expressed interest in terminating habeas corpus—the legal protection that prevents indefinite detention without trial.

At the heart of the conflict is our notion of the separation of powers, a foundational principle of the U.S. Constitution, designed to prevent the concentration of authority by dividing governmental functions among three coequal branches: the legislative (Congress), which makes laws; the executive (headed by the President), which enforces laws; and the judicial (courts), which interprets laws. This structure of government originates from Enlightenment political theory, resting on the idea that liberty could only be preserved if political power were divided and balanced. The Founding Fathers, having witnessed the abuses of centralized power under British rule, embedded this model into the Constitution to ensure a system of checks and balances, where each branch could limit the powers of the others, safeguarding against tyranny and upholding the rule of law.

Taken together, the challenge to birthright citizenship and the proposed abolition of habeas corpus are a deliberate effort to remove constitutional safeguards that restrain executive power and attack the separation of powers in the U.S. constitution. If the president can unilaterally alter the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, avoid effective judicial oversight, and eliminate habeas corpus protections, the checks and balances system foundational to American governance begins to break down.

Legal Arguments Presented and Judicial Pushback

During oral arguments, the administration’s lawyer advanced the claim that birthright citizenship was intended only for formerly enslaved people and their descendants, not for the children of immigrants. Justice Sotomayor challenged this argument by citing multiple Supreme Court precedents confirming the broader application of birthright citizenship. She also questioned the administration’s attempt to limit judicial injunctions to individual plaintiffs, noting that this would undermine access to collective legal remedies and equal protection.

Justices Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson expressed concern over the real-world impact of restricting relief to individuals. Many affected parties may lack the financial or logistical means to sue individually. The administration offered no clear answer, instead deflecting with appeals to originalism and procedural ambiguity.

Implications if the Court Agrees with the Administration

Should the Court accept the administration’s arguments, the consequences would be immediate and widespread:

• Children born in the U.S. could be rendered stateless, without access to Social Security numbers, education, or healthcare.
• Judicial power would be weakened, with courts unable to stop unconstitutional policies through broad injunctions.
• Families could be coerced into leaving the country, regardless of their legal status, using the threat of a child’s statelessness as leverage.
• Due process protections could be eroded, especially if habeas corpus is weakened or eliminated.

The cumulative effect would be a constitutional structure unable to check executive overreach, fundamentally altering the relationship between citizens and the state.

Historical Context and Legal Precedent

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, was explicitly intended to protect all persons born in the United States, regardless of ancestry. This principle has remained intact through two world wars, civil rights struggles, and modern immigration waves. To abandon it now would reverse over 150 years of constitutional jurisprudence.

The idea that courts cannot issue broad injunctions, or that constitutional protections are available only to those who can individually sue for relief, contradicts the American legal tradition. It would mark a departure from class-action and civil rights precedents that have been essential to advancing equality under the law.

Finally, undermining habeas corpus—used to prevent unlawful detention—would revoke one of the oldest protections in Anglo-American legal history, dating back to the Magna Carta.

The Court’s Role and the Stakes Involved

The Supreme Court is now being asked to decide whether the Constitution continues to serve as a binding legal framework that limits the power of government, or whether it can be overridden by executive discretion.

The issue is not whether citizenship laws should change—Congress can always legislate within constitutional bounds—but whether the executive can reinterpret foundational constitutional rights unilaterally, without effective judicial review.

This is a moment of institutional reckoning. The Court’s decision will determine not just the fate of a specific population but the future balance of power in the American constitutional system.

Conclusion

If the Court validates the administration’s position, the United States risks moving from a republic governed by laws to a state governed by unrestrained executive authority. The Constitution, rather than functioning as a check on power, would be relegated to symbolic status. The phrase "a government of the people, by the people, for the people" would give way to one increasingly defined as government of the rulers, by the rulers, for the rulers.

What is at stake is not just a narrow legal doctrine dealing with birthright citizenship. It is whether the United States will remain a constitutional democracy or slide into authoritarianism under the guise of legal reform. It is true, the court was only asked to deal with the nationwide injunctions issued by federal courts to prevent the government from enforcing Trump’s executive order. But whatever ruling the court issues, it will impact the entire national approach to government.