SCOTUS hears arguments on birthright citizenship

The constitutional issue of birthright citizenship finally had its day at the Supreme Court...sort of.

The Supreme Court Justices heard arguments on Thursday regarding several District Court decisions to issue nationwide injunctions against Pres. Trump's day-one executive order to block conferring automatic citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal-alien and temporary-visitor parents.

IAP’s Policy Director and Director of Government Relations were privileged to be invited to attend the arguments before the Supreme Court. They have been in the trenches on Capitol Hill for decades, but this was a rare opportunity to have a front-row view of our judicial system. They both agree it was an amazing experience, but report that the seats in the courtroom are extremely uncomfortable!

The question before the Court on Thursday was not whether Pres. Trump's birthright citizenship order is consistent with the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Instead, it was whether lower federal courts have abused their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions against the administration's orders. In other words, does a single District Court judge have the power to completely halt enforcement of a presidential directive across the nation?

Over the first four months of the president's second term, lower courts have halted or partially halted a multitude of executive actions. These include the orders to end birthright citizenship, terminate the CHNV parole program for illegal aliens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, halt the Refugee Admissions program, and expeditiously deport aliens who are members of terror-designated gangs by invoking the Alien Enemies Act.

While it will be a while before the Supreme Court hears arguments, and finally rules, on the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship, we were hopeful that we would get an idea of where each of the nine Justices stands on the issue. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were the only ones to explicitly state that they believe the Trump order violates the 14th Amendment.

Section one of the 14th Amendment states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Congress codified that language in the Immigration and Nationality Act and listed specific situations where citizenship would be conveyed to newborn children. Children born to illegal-alien parents or temporary-visitor parents are not included in the list.

The question at hand is whether a child born to aliens in the United States illegally or on a temporary visa is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. The Immigration Accountability Project believes they are not. (You can read more on the arguments for ending birthright citizenship in our new fact sheet here.)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) have introduced legislation – S. 304 and H.R. 569, respectively – that would end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or actively serving in the armed forces.

Immigration News

CBP Releases April 2025 Monthly Update
The good news continued through April, with nationwide encounters of illegal aliens remaining low and flat. This is the third consecutive month with encounters at less than 30,000. As a reminder, the unlawful CHNV parole program alone was letting in 30,000 people a month (with work authorization) during the Biden Administration. CBP notes that southwest border apprehensions are 93% lower than in the previous April.

ICE cracks down on DC-area businesses, nearly 200 illegal immigrants arrested
Two weeks ago, we told you about the major immigration enforcement operation in Florida that resulted in more than 1,000 arrests. At the end of last week, ICE ran a four-day operation in the sanctuary city of Washington, D.C., nabbing nearly 200 illegal aliens and serving notices of inspection to 187 businesses. This operation should serve as a notice to other sanctuary cities: immigration enforcement is happening, with or without your cooperation.

20 states sue Trump admin over immigration enforcement funding threats
Speaking of sanctuary jurisdictions, 20 Democratic Attorneys General are suing the Trump Administration over fears that they will lose money for blocking cooperation with immigration enforcement. The legal action stems from the President’s April 28th executive order “PROTECTING AMERICAN COMMUNITIES FROM CRIMINAL ALIENS,” which orders the Attorney General and Secretary of DHS to identify sanctuary jurisdictions and pursue legal action, and the heads of the Federal agencies to identify federal funds to withhold from those jurisdictions. 

Mexico condemns proposed 5% tax on remittances from US
This week, the House Ways and Means Committee released its part of the budget reconciliation package, including a 5% tax on remittances (or wire transfers of money out of the country). Predictably, countries like Mexico, which have facilitated illegal immigration to the United States for their economic benefit, are upset at the new tax. We take that as great news.

Next Week

The House and Senate are both in next week for their last session before the Memorial Day recess. Assuming House Republicans can agree on the “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” the reconciliation bill should be voted on by the House next week. The Senate is expected to make changes to the bill and vote on it sometime this summer. In other words, we still have a long way to go before the border security and immigration enforcement funding in reconciliation becomes a reality.