The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a landmark case in 2026 challenging President Donald Trump’s authority to end birthright citizenship for children born to illegal and temporary residents. The case, Trump v. Barbara, focuses on the legality of Trump’s executive order denying automatic citizenship to children born after February 19, 2025, whose parents lack legal permanent status in the United States.
At the heart of the legal battle is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The key legal question is what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means and whether it applies to children born to parents unlawfully present in the country.
Constitutional scholars are divided. Michael Ramsey, a law professor at the University of San Diego, argues that jurisdiction includes anyone subject to U.S. laws, which would include illegal immigrants. By this interpretation, Trump’s order would conflict with established legal precedent affirming citizenship for all born on U.S. soil.
In contrast, University of Minnesota law professor Ilan Wurman supports Trump’s legal rationale. He contends that citizenship depends on whether a person’s parents are under the protection and allegiance of the U.S. sovereign. Wurman argues that under English common law, a historical foundation of U.S. legal principles, birthright citizenship was reserved only for those whose parents had legal permission to reside within the country. Without such protection, he asserts, citizenship cannot be conferred.
Wurman pointed to historical precedent, noting that children of foreign diplomats are not granted birthright citizenship because of their diplomatic immunity. He argued that illegal entrants, having come without permission or legal standing, fall outside the scope of U.S. sovereign protection.
Ramsey disagreed, stating that even illegal residents are subject to U.S. laws and therefore within U.S. jurisdiction. He emphasized that the exception for diplomats hinges on diplomatic immunity, not merely legal status.
The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments, but the case is expected to be heard in early 2026. The decision could have far-reaching implications for immigration law and the interpretation of constitutional citizenship.
