End birthright citizenship

In a June 27 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door for children born in the U.S. to certain immigrant parents to be denied birthright citizenship in some parts of the country. 

Birthright citizenship is the longstanding practice of conferring citizenship on anyone born in the United States, including when the parents are noncitizens. 

The court's decision in Trump v. Casa Inc. did not not address the constitutionality of Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of noncitizens. Instead it addressed whether lower court judges had the authority to block the policy nationwide. 

In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court found that lower courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington "likely" exceeded their authority by blocking the policy nationwide. 

The court granted the Trump administration's request to narrow the scope of the lower courts' injunctions. An injunction is a legal pause on the order. It's now up to the lower courts to assess the scope of the injunctions.

"I expect that there will be a lot of litigation in the next 30 days which could well halt implementation of the executive order," said Gabriel Chin, University of California Davis law professor. "This decision by no means indicates that the executive order will ultimately take effect." 

For 30 days from the Supreme Court's decision, Trump can't implement his policy, giving the lower courts time to reevaluate. Immigration law experts said that for the plaintiffs, which include 22 states, immigration organizations and several individuals, the policy would remain blocked even after 30 days. That's because the court's opinion said the lawsuit plaintiffs must still be covered by the injunction.

For the other 28 states that didn't sue, it's possible that Trump's order could move forward after 30 days. 

Soon after the decision, immigrant rights advocates filed class action lawsuits against the Trump administration, challenging the law on behalf of people who would be denied citizenship under Trump's order. 

A class action offers legal protection to people who are not formal plaintiffs. Lawyers can establish a "class" of people by proving the law would similarly affect the whole group. Then, the results of a lawsuit can apply to all people in that class. 

Under the Supreme Court ruling, it is now harder for courts to issue injunctions that legally protect people or groups other than the plaintiffs. However, a class action lawsuit, if successful, could have a similar effect as a nationwide injunction.

"Class certification process is both time consuming and costly which is why the nationwide injunction allows for a faster remedy under urgent circumstances," said immigration lawyer Rekha Sharma-Crawford.

Although the justices didn't decide what limits — if any — birthright citizenship should have, some legal experts expressed concern about the decision's practical effects.

Children born in the states that have challenged Trump's order as plaintiffs in the lawsuit "are likely U.S. citizens," said University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt. "But in other districts that have upheld the order, babies born to non-citizens are effectively stateless and vulnerable to further attacks on their legal status."

If Trump's order goes into effect in any jurisdiction, it'd be "highly disruptive," Peter Spiro, Temple University law professor, said. "Birthright citizenship shouldn't depend on where you're born, and the meaning of the 14th Amendment should be nationally consistent."

The Constitution's "full faith and credit clause," which requires states to respect other states' laws and legal judgments, is also at issue if states apply Trump order's differently, experts said. 

"If a child is a citizen in 22 states, then under the full faith and credit clause, they should be a citizen for all states," Sharma-Crawford said. "Whether the federal government will recognize them as such remains a question that will likely land back in front of the court in due course."

Legal experts offered differing assessments on whether this ruling means the justices will lean toward overturning automatic birthright citizenship.

George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin said the ruling on the procedural question means "little or nothing" about the substantive question of whether there should be limits on birthright citizenship.

But Gerhardt said the ruling "suggests the real possibility" that the justices could go along with "dismantling" birthright citizenship in a future challenge.

The court has not ruled on the merits of Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship, but the court's decision lets the administration eventually move forward with its policy at least in some states. For this reason, Trump's promise to end birthright citizenship remains In the Works. 

PolitiFact Chief Correspondent Louis Jacobson contributed to this report.

On Jan. 23, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour blocked for 14 days President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, saying its "harms are immediate, ongoing, and significant, and cannot be remedied in the ordinary course of litigation."

Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon challenged Trump's order as unconstitutional.

Coughenour's ruling said Trump's order harms the states by directly forcing its agencies to lose federal funding and incur substantial costs to provide medical care and social services to children subject to the order.

The judge said a temporary restraining order was necessary until the court can consider the states' forthcoming motion for a preliminary injunction. The New York Times reported that the judge, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, said Trump's order was "a blatantly unconstitutional order."

Trump told reporters Jan. 23 that his administration would appeal the judge's decision.

Trump's order said birthright citizenship "does not automatically extend" to children born in the U.S. when the mother was "unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth" or when the "mother's presence in the United States at the time of said person's birth was lawful but temporary." There are multiple scenarios in which people can be in the U.S. lawfully but temporarily, such as on student, work or tourist visas.

This promise is one of 75 campaign promises that PolitiFact will track on the MAGA-Meter. Over the next four years, we will periodically evaluate the new administration's progress on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, just as we did with Barack Obama, Trump during his first term, and Joe Biden.

Other states and immigrant rights groups have also sued the Trump administration over the executive order. 

Given the judge's order temporarily blocking Trump's order on birthright citizenship, we rate this promise Stalled. 

PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

In line with his 2024 campaign promise, President Donald Trump issued an executive order his first day in office declaring that future children of people in the country illegally will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship.

Birthright citizenship refers to people's right to become U.S citizens if they're born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' immigration status. The order is expected to prompt a court fight; it will not undo birthright citizenship on its own. 

Trump's order says that the privilege of U.S. citizenship "does not automatically extend" to children born in the U.S. when the mother was "unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth" or when the "mother's presence in the United States at the time of said person's birth was lawful but temporary." It lists temporary statuses such as visiting the country on the visa waiver program or visiting on a student, work or tourist visa.

The order says it will apply in 30 days to children born under those circumstances. Trump's directive says agencies cannot issue documents recognizing citizenship or accept any governmental documents purporting to recognize citizenship for births in those cases. He told department leaders to issue public guidance within 30 days for the order's application.

Trump tried, and failed, to curtail this right in his first term. He did not try an executive order then; he preferred to wait on a bill from Congress, he said in 2018, "because that's permanent." 

As Trump campaigned on this promise in 2024, legal experts told us that attempts to end birthright citizenship would prompt a court battle over the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment and could require a constitutional amendment.

The 14th Amendment says that "all 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." 

A 1952 statute echoes the 14th Amendment's language, reading in part: "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Universal birthright citizenship's opponents see wiggle room in the qualifier "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which appears in both places.

The phrase has traditionally been interpreted to exclude only the U.S.-born children of foreign diplomats or of enemy forces engaged in hostilities on U.S. soil. But people skeptical of birthright citizenship's legal basis have argued that the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically ruled on whether the children of people in the country illegally would qualify for birthright citizenship.

Trump's executive order takes that stance, saying that the amendment "has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States" and has "always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'"

Peter J. Spiro, a Temple University Law School professor, told PolitiFact that a strong argument for continuing birthright citizenship is that "that's how we've done it for more than a century now. The historical practice is well entrenched: The children of undocumented parents have always been extended birth citizenship. The practice has been uniform and, until recently, uncontested."

Birthright citizenship's supporters are likely to sue over Trump's order, which could leave the ultimate decision to the Supreme Court.

Trump's executive order moves Trump's intent forward but lacks the power to change constitutional language on its own. We rate this promise In the Works.