The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on April 1 in *Trump v. Barbara*, a case challenging President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented or temporary residents in the United States.
The case is one of eight scheduled during the court's March argument session, which runs from March 23-25 and again from March 30-April 1. The justices will also hear oral arguments in an election law case, *Watson v. Republican National Committee*, on March 23.
Trump issued the executive order at the center of the birthright citizenship case on Jan. 20, 2025, his first day in office. The order, which has never gone into effect due to court challenges, would bar automatic citizenship for babies born in the United States if their parents are in the country either illegally or temporarily.
The legal challenge centers on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that "[a]ll 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." Challengers contend that Trump's order conflicts with both the Supreme Court's longstanding case law and the text of this constitutional provision.
The Trump administration offers a different interpretation of the citizenship clause. The administration argues that the 14th Amendment, which was added to the Constitution in 1868, was simply intended to ensure that formerly enslaved people and their children were U.S. citizens, rather than to provide the sweeping benefit that it confers today.
The April 1 argument will mark the first time that the justices will officially consider the legality of Trump's order. The path to the Supreme Court has been complicated by procedural issues involving nationwide injunctions.
After several federal courts around the country blocked the government from enforcing the order, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the power of federal district courts to issue orders - often known as "universal" or "nationwide" injunctions - that prohibit the government from implementing a law or policy anywhere in the country. The Supreme Court ruled in late June that federal judges generally cannot issue such orders.
Following the court's ruling on universal injunctions, lawsuits contesting the order continued in the lower courts, which once again ruled for the challengers. In *Barbara*, a federal judge in New Hampshire barred the government from enforcing the order against babies born on or after Feb. 20, 2025, when the order was slated to take effect, who are or would be denied citizenship under Trump's order.
The case represents one of the most significant constitutional challenges to birthright citizenship in modern American history. The principle of jus soli, or "right of the soil," has been a cornerstone of American citizenship law since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, following the Civil War.
The 14th Amendment was specifically designed to overturn the Supreme Court's 1857 decision in *Dred Scott v. Sandford*, which held that African Americans could not be U.S. citizens. The amendment's citizenship clause was intended to establish that all persons born in the United States, regardless of race or the status of their parents, would be American citizens.
The current challenge puts the Supreme Court in the position of interpreting whether the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship extends to children of undocumented immigrants and temporary residents. Legal scholars have debated this question for decades, with most constitutional experts arguing that the plain text of the amendment supports broad birthright citizenship rights.
The case has significant implications for immigration policy and constitutional law. If the Supreme Court were to uphold Trump's executive order, it would represent a fundamental shift in how American citizenship is determined and could affect thousands of children born in the United States each year.
The timing of the oral arguments, scheduled for April 1, means that a decision could come by the end of the court's current term in late June or early July. Given the constitutional magnitude of the issues involved, the case is likely to produce detailed written opinions from multiple justices, regardless of how the court ultimately rules.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer will represent the Trump administration before the Supreme Court, while challengers will argue that the executive order exceeds presidential authority and violates the Constitution's clear mandate regarding birthright citizenship.
The outcome of *Trump v. Barbara* will have lasting consequences for American immigration law and constitutional interpretation, potentially reshaping one of the fundamental principles of U.S. citizenship that has been in place for more than 150 years.