One of the first things an Argentine immigrant mother in Florida did after her son was born was secure a U.S. passport for him, seeing it as tangible proof that he was an American. She later found herself drawn into a broader legal fight over President Donald Trump’s executive order that, if allowed to take effect, would deny citizenship to children born in the United States to parents in the country illegally or temporarily.
The Supreme Court, in hearings on Wednesday, is considering whether the order signed on Jan. 20, 2025—described as Trump’s effort to “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”—fits with the post-Civil War 14th Amendment and an 86-year-old federal law that has been widely understood to make citizens of most people born in the country. Lower courts that reviewed the order have blocked it from taking effect, and the matter now lands before the nation’s highest court.
For the mother, the stakes are personal and ongoing. She told the Associated Press on condition of anonymity, which her lawyers said was requested out of fear of retribution by the Republican administration if she were identified publicly. She said she was “definitely relieved” that, at least for now, her child would be “protected,” and she described having scheduled his passport application “even before he was born.”
The dispute turns on the Constitution’s “Citizenship Clause,” which makes citizens of “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The arguments before the justices focus on what the final phrase—about being subject to U.S. jurisdiction—means, and how it applies to children born in the United States to people the order characterizes as unauthorized or only temporarily present.
Trump’s legal theory, as laid out in filings, argues that people in the country illegally or temporarily are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore their U.S.-born children should not be entitled to citizenship. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, urged the court to use the case to address what he described as “long-enduring misconceptions about the Constitution’s meaning,” according to his submissions. In that effort, Sauer compared the dispute to landmark Supreme Court decisions including Brown v. Board of Education and Heller.
The challenge to the executive order has been framed as a conflict between an order issued by the president and the constitutional and statutory framework governing citizenship. The New Hampshire case asks the justices to decide whether Trump’s order comports with the Constitution and federal law. In that case, U.S. District Judge Joseph N. LaPlante ruled the order “likely violates” both the Constitution and federal law.
Cecillia Wang of the American Civil Liberties Union will argue against the order on Wednesday, contending that it improperly attempts to change constitutional meaning through executive action. Wang said, “We have the president of the United States trying to radically reinterpret the definition of American citizenship.” The ACLU position is that the order conflicts with the Citizenship Clause and related governing precedent, and that the legal challenge brought against it is grounded in that conflict.
The case also comes as part of what the AP described as a wider immigration crackdown by the Trump administration, including stepped-up deportations and reductions in refugee admissions, as well as changes involving asylum at the border and temporary legal protections for people fleeing instability. The birthright question, however, presents a distinct test for the high court over whether it will allow an anti-immigration measure that lower courts have said is unlawful.
Beyond the legal analysis, the mother described how the ruling unfolding in the courts shaped her outlook during late pregnancy. She said that after the Supreme Court’s June decision, it became at least possible that the restrictions could take effect and that she had begun to worry about how the executive order could impact her baby. She said she had not changed her view of the United States after the developments, describing the country as the place where she found “the most beautiful thing” she has today—her family.