The administrator of Trump asks the Supreme Court to review the legality of the end of the citizenship of the right of birth

President Donald Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court last week to review the legality of its decree ending the citizenship of the birth law – a large -scale order which, if promulgated, would have deep impacts on the lives of millions of American Americans and residents.

It would also mark the second time in less than a year that the Supreme Court would examine the order, at least technically.

Trump administration officials consider order as a key element in its hard online immigration program, which has become a decisive characteristic of the second term of Trump’s White House. The opponents argued that the effort is unconstitutional and “unprecedented” and would have an impact on some 150,000 children in the United States who were born every year from the parents of non-citizens.

While the court is preparing to launch its fall mandate, here is what you need to know about the order – and the next possible steps – in the very publicized case.

The federal judge blocks the prohibition of citizenship of Trump’s right of birth for all infants, testing lower justice powers

US President Donald Trump and US prosecutor Pam Bondi, on the left, arrive to speak to the Ministry of Justice of Washington, DC (Roberto Schmidt / AFP via Getty Images)

What’s new?

US Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the Supreme Court last week to examine the merit of the executive decree of Trump’s Birthright citizenship. His request was largely concentrated on two judicial orders made in July by a federal judge of New Hampshire and by the American Court of Appeal for the ninth circuit.

In his request to the High Court, Sauer argued that the decisions of the lower court were too wide and “invalidated a policy of privileged importance for the president and his administration in a way that undermines our border security”.

The New Hampshire affair, Barbara c. Trump, focuses on a preliminary injunction Represented by the American district judge Joseph Laplante in July.

Laplante has judged that Trump’s executive order ending the citizenship of the right of birthday probably contradicts the 14th amendment and the “previous centenary previous one”.

He also certified in class all infants born in the United States after February 20, 2025, which would have been denied by citizenship under the Trump decree.

Sauer also perfected the American Court of Appeal for the ninth circuit, which ruled 2-1 to invalidate Trump’s order.

Trump to start applying the order of droit citizenship this month, says the doj

President Donald Trump holds a decree after having signed it during an inauguration parade in the Capital One Arena on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

The majority 2-1 of the ninth circuit judged that the order was “invalid” because it “contradicts the clear language of the fourteenth amendment” and its citizenship clause.

Sauer argued last week that the Supreme Court has “imperative interest in ensuring that American citizenship – the privilege that allows us to choose our political leaders – is granted solely to those who are legally entitled to it.”

Sauer also reiterated the argument of the administration that the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was intended to “grant citizenship to the newly released slaves and their children”.

The decisions in question, he said, are based on the “erroneous vision” according to which “birth on American territory confers citizenship on anyone who submitted to the regulatory scope of American law has become omnipresent, with destructive consequences”.

In particular, he chose not to ask the judges of acid for the case, which means that the oral arguments would probably not be planned before the end of the year. More details of the high court could occur this month after the challengers give their responses to the High Court.

The judges of the Supreme Court are in the Chamber of the Chamber for a speech on the State of the Union in Capitole in Washington, DC, on March 7, 2024. (Julia Nikhinson / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

What has changed?

In short, not much. Although the Supreme Court Technically, examined the case in May, the Trump administration’s appeal to the Court and the judges themselves claimed to tackle the advantages of the order during their first exam.

Instead, the call and oral arguments of May have focused closely on the ability of the lower courts to issue so -called “universal” or national injunctions which prevent the decree of a president from taking care of through the country.

In June, the judges judged 6-3 that the complainants requesting a national repair should lead to the cases of collective appeal, narrowing cases where the lower district courts can issue universal injunctions.

And although the judges of the majority of the Supreme Court seemed to consider the affair of citizenship of birth law as a valid pretext for the administration in order to challenge the lower judicial authorities, this did not have an impact on the fate of the ordinance itself, which was blocked by several federal courts in the weeks which followed the decision of the Supreme Court.

Trial tracker: a new resistance which fights against Trump’s second term thanks to the assault of proceedings which aim at EOS

The American prosecutor Pam Bondi speaks alongside President Donald Trump on the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in the White House Information Salle on June 27, 2025, in Washington, DC (Getty Images)

Trump’s order

The executive decree in question was signed by Trump on January 20, the first day of his second mandate from the White House. He ordered all American government agencies to refuse to issue citizenship documents to children born of illegal immigrants or to children who have at least one parent who is a permanent or legitimate permanent resident.

The order aims to clarify the 14th amendment, which stipulates: “All people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to their competence, are citizens of the United States and the State in which they reside”.

Instead, the language proposed by Trump officials – and subsequently blocked in court – would be modified to note that people born of illegal immigrant parents, or those who were legally but on temporary non -immigrant visas, are not Citizens by birth right.

Public perception

The order of Trump on the citizenship of the birth law provoked intense criticisms on the part of the Democrats and certain Republicans, who note that the United States is one of the years around the world where citizenship of the birth law has been offered for a long time.

A woman occupies a sign supporting immigrants while people attend a parade of the day of Mexican independence in Chicago, Illinois, on September 14, 2025. (Kamil Krzaczynski / AFP via Getty)

He was almost immediately disputed before the court by more than 22 US states and immigrant defense groups, which warned that possible repercussions of the order could prove to be “catastrophic”.

His good legal faith remains unclear and to date, no court has taken sides of the Trump administration in the application of the order.

Always, Critics noted The deep uncertainty of the order, and the lack of clear consensus of the courts, caused many Americans and residents living here without permanent citizenship.

Click here to obtain the Fox News app

“I think that we have documented in the file is the incredible stress, anxiety and fear that our complainants know because they are not lawyers,” said the Casa lawyer, William Powell, to journalists of uncertainty surrounding the executive decree and the current dispute.

“It is confusing for them, and we cannot really assure them that the order is entirely blocked, because it is not the case.”