Trump asks Supreme Court to rehear birthright citizenship case

The Legal Conflict Over the 14th Amendment

The current dispute centers on an executive order signed by Trump on January 20, 2025. That directive sought to deny citizenship documents to babies born in the U.S. if their parents were undocumented workers or had immigrated illegally. In a 6-3 decision delivered on June 30, the Supreme Court rejected the order, ruling that it violated the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. The court found that the Constitution confers citizenship to all those born in the U.S. who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Trump has reacted to the ruling by calling it too bad for our country and urging Republicans in Congress to pass legislation to restrict the practice. However, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion indicated that such a change would likely require a constitutional amendment.

“AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS NOT FOR SALE! In fact, that is a crime, and therefore, the Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong. I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision.”
Donald Trump, via Truth Social

Trump’s Claims of a ‘Birthright Citizenship Scam’

The president’s push for a rehearing is driven by allegations that birthright citizenship is being marketed as a commodity. Trump claims that billboards along the U.S. Southern Border and within Mexico are advertising Deliveries starting at $4000 for birthright citizenship. He characterized this as a SCAM that allows citizenship to be sold to anyone willing to pay.

Legal experts suggest the odds of a successful rehearing are slim. Steven Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law, noted that the Supreme Court has not agreed to rehear a ruling of a case already argued since 1965. Furthermore, the last time the court reversed its own decision in an argued case was in 1956.

Projected Social and Demographic Impacts

The stakes of the executive order involve the legal status of hundreds of thousands of children. A study from the Migration Policy Institute-Penn State, released in May of last year, provided the following projections if the order were upheld:

• An estimated 255,000 infants per year would be born in the U.S. without citizenship.
• The undocumented population would increase by 2.7 million by 2045.
• The creation of a self-perpetuating, multigenerational underclass where U.S.-born residents inherit the social disadvantages of their parents.

Rights organizations have viewed the court’s initial rejection of the order as a victory for fundamental rights. Cecillia Wang, a lawyer with the ACLU who argued the challenge, stated the decision reaffirms a fundamental American promise – if you are born here, you are a citizen.

Broader Patterns in Trump’s Legal and Policy Strategy

The birthright citizenship battle is part of a larger effort by the administration to overhaul U.S. immigration and election systems. While the court blocked the citizenship restriction, it has granted other victories, such as allowing the administration to end Temporary Protected Status for some residents and permitting the physical blocking of asylum seekers from U.S. soil.

This aggressive use of executive power extends to election law. Trump signed an order titled Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections, which requires voters to submit official proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate. This move drew criticism from Richard Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA, who argued it could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters who lack easy access to such documents.

Trump’s current legal strategy also involves challenging other court outcomes. This week, he asked the Supreme Court to reconsider a denial of his petition regarding a New York federal court verdict involving E. Jean Carroll. Despite this, a Manhattan District Court judge ordered that $5 million deposited in 2023, plus nearly $800,000 in interest, be distributed to Carroll.

The Legal Pressure on Former Officials

Parallel to these policy shifts, the administration has targeted former officials who led investigations into the 2016 election. James Comey, the former FBI Director, was charged with lying to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.

The charges stem from a September 30, 2020, hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Justice Department alleges Comey lied when he told Senator Ted Cruz that he never authorized FBI personnel to act as anonymous sources in news reports. This claim was contradicted by testimony from former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Comey faces up to five years in prison if convicted.

Find more reporting in our News section.