Trump goes to the Supreme Court while the judges debate the end of the right to birthright citizenship in the US

Donald Trump returned to break with democratic traditions this Wednesday, and twice. The president of the United States made it his crusade, from day one of his second presidency, end the constitutional right to access US citizenship which extends to children of people who are not citizens, even if they have a long-term legal visa. Trump’s second unprecedented move came this Wednesday, when he became the first American president who, while still in office, has appeared in the highest courtlike a silent presence but loaded with symbolism. At the very least, a reminder of the importance this legal battle has for him.

The Republican He entered the room ten minutes before the start, sat in the front row from the area reserved for the public, on a bench covered with red cushions, and left the session a little over an hour laterjust when the magistrates began to question the plaintiffs’ lawyer, refusing to stay for the entire session. This case, which could alter a guarantee that generations of Americans have taken for granted, also sparked attention outside the court, where there were protests from the early hours.

Donald Trump stated on his social network: “We are the only country in the world sufficiently STUPID to allow birthright citizenship.!”, an inaccurate statement, since this principle exists in other countries.

A constitutional battle

Trump signed the executive order the same day he returned to the White House, in January 2025with the intention of denying automatic citizenship to the children of immigrants undocumented and foreign visitors with temporary visas. The measure has never come into force, having been rejected by several lower courts. But a victory for the president in the Supreme Court would have immediate and profound consequences: different estimates suggest that each year they could lose that right around 200,000 babies born on American soil.

The cause places at the center of the debate the citizenship clause of the Amendment 14ratified in 1868which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction” They are citizens. Until the signing of Trump’s decree, the legal and political consensus in the country had been very broad. Furthermore, a key precedent of 1898 confirmed that Wong Kim Arkborn in San Francisco to noncitizen parents and of Chinese descent, was American.

The court’s doubts

Although he Supremoof conservative majorityusually favors him in cases linked to his second term, in February he knocked down his tariffs considering that he improperly used an emergency powers law and recalled that these measures must go through Congress. Since then, Trump has attacked the conservative judges who voted against. He called them “fools”, “perros falderos” and, this Tuesday he added, “stupid” y “disloyal”.

During the hearing, several justices, including members of the court’s conservative supermajority (made up of six conservatives and three progressives), showed their discomfort with some of the Administration’s arguments. The president of the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts Jr.and the judges Neil M. Gorsuch y Amy Coney Barrett They were among those who showed reservations about the Government’s position.

In one of the most striking exchanges, the attorney general, D. John Sauerwas asked about the call birth tourismthe practice by which pregnant women travel to the United States so that their children are born there and gain citizenship. Sauer responded: “Well, it certainly wasn’t a problem in the 19th century, no.”before adding: “Now we live in a new world”. Roberts cut that line of defense with a blunt retort: “Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution”.

Roberts himself also described “peculiar” a central part of the Government’s reasoning, in a sign that the Supreme Court may not simply accept the White House thesis.

What’s at stake

Limiting automatic citizenship for children of migrants in an irregular situation was one of Trump’s main campaign promises, who returned to power with a tougher immigration policy. The president maintains that constitutional protection was approved after the civil war of 1861-1865 to protect the “children of slaves” and not, according to his expression, to those who “They take vacations to obtain citizenship”.

In June 2025the conservative majority of the Court, for six votes to threealready gave Trump a first procedural victory by lifting the blockades imposed by judges of Maryland, Washington y Massachusetts. That ruling, however, did not resolve the constitutionality of the executive order. The court then limited itself to ruling on the ability of lower courts to stop Executive decisions on a national scale.

Those who oppose the decree warn that applying it would open a scenario of legal chaos and strong insecurity for newborns and their families, in addition to sowing doubts about the status of millions of people who have already benefited from the birthright citizenship. It would also require the creation of a complex, fragmented and costly verification system to determine which babies would be eligible for nationality and which would not.

The demographic impact

The consequences could go far beyond the births of the coming months. A recent study estimates that, if Trump manages to carry out his plan, there could be 6.4 million children born in the United States without legal status in 2050. The largest number of people affected would be the population spanishwhile the largest proportional change in births without citizenship would be recorded among the population Asian.

Critics add another extreme risk: that babies abandoned on US soil could become stateless persons. To legal experts, human rights defenders and detractors of the president, the underlying question remains the same: whether a right protected in the Constitution can be curtailed by a simple presidential order.

Subscribe to continue reading