Category: Executive order
This Supreme Court case could decide the future of American citizenship
The Supreme Court recently heard more than two hours of argument in Trump v. Barbara, the case testing the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
Trump himself sat in the courtroom for part of the session, the first time a sitting president has done so. The moment was striking not for its symbolism alone but for what it revealed: a fundamental challenge to a 150-year-old interpretation of American identity.
The American ‘exception’ was built on a conscious break from notions of blood and soil.
The executive order, issued on Trump’s first day back in office in January 2025, directs federal agencies not to recognize automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented or present on temporary visas. It turns on the opening words of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
The administration’s core argument — one rooted in a “consensualist” theory of citizenship — is that “subject to the jurisdiction” requires more than mere presence on the soil. They argue it requires full and exclusive political allegiance, a condition that undocumented immigrants and short-term visa holders, who remain subjects of their home countries, cannot meet.
The challengers, led by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a plaintiff identified as Barbara, insist the clause was meant to be a simple, sweeping geographical rule. They point to the common-law tradition of jus soli — citizenship by place of birth — that they argue the framers of the amendment endorsed.
Constitutional history, however, is rarely so settled. While the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 — to overturn the Dred Scott decision — scholars on the right point to the intent of the amendment’s authors, like Sen. Jacob Howard, who suggested the clause excluded those who owed allegiance to a foreign power.
While the Court applied the clause to children of legal residents in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the administration argues that case never explicitly addressed the children of those present in violation of federal law.
Lower courts have struck down the executive order, but the justices’ questions on Wednesday showed they are wrestling with the modern reality of mass migration. Several asked how a “narrow” jurisdiction rule would work in a hospital delivery room. Chief Justice John Roberts reminded the solicitor general that the Constitution is not a “living” document that changes with the wind, but conservative justices also pressed the government on whether this executive action bypasses the legislative role of Congress.
The skepticism was notable because the case arrives after the Court’s 2025 ruling that limited the scope of nationwide injunctions, ensuring the policy reached the high court on its merits.
This debate is not abstract. Birthright citizenship has long set the United States apart from the “Old World.” Most countries grant citizenship primarily by descent — jus sanguinis. In Pakistan, as in India and much of Europe, a child acquires citizenship through a parent’s nationality.
The American “exception” was built on a conscious break from notions of blood and soil, but critics argue that the exception has become an unintended magnet for illegal entry and birth tourism.
RELATED: A birthright citizenship fix is more important than the SAVE Act
PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images
The executive order does not seek to formally amend the Constitution, but rather to correct what its supporters see as a century of judicial and administrative drift. It would not strip citizenship from anyone already born; it applies prospectively.
Still a decision to uphold it would effectively align the United States with the legislative models of Britain, Australia, and Ireland, all of which moved away from pure jus soli to better manage migration pressures.
The Court’s eventual ruling — expected by early summer — matters profoundly. If the justices narrow the clause, they will have restored what originalists believe was the 14th Amendment’s true meaning: that citizenship is a mutual contract between a sovereign and a subject.
If they preserve the status quo, they will affirm that the 14th Amendment’s promise remains a geographical absolute.
The hearing did not settle the question, but it forced a reckoning. In an age of porous borders, the United States must decide whether its rule of soil remains a pillar of strength or an outdated incentive that undermines the very concept of national sovereignty.
The Court’s answer will help determine the terms on which future generations enter the American story.
Trump takes bold step to protect America’s AI ‘dominance’ — but blue states may not like it
The Trump administration is challenging bureaucracy and freeing up the tech industry from burdensome regulations as the AI race speeds on. This week saw Trump’s most recent efforts to keep the United States on the leading edge.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday that will challenge state AI regulations and work toward “a minimally burdensome national standard — not 50 discordant state ones.”
‘You can’t expect a company to get 50 Approvals every time they want to do something.’
“It is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI,” the executive order reads.
The executive order commands the creation of the AI Litigation Task Force, “whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge state AI laws inconsistent with the policy set forth in … this order.”
RELATED: ‘America’s next Manifest Destiny’: Department of War unleashes new AI capabilities for military
Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP via Getty Images
The order provided more reasons for a national standard as well.
For example, it cited a new Colorado law banning “algorithmic discrimination,” which, the order argued, may force AI models to produce false results in order to comply with that stipulation. It also argued that state laws are responsible for much of the ideological bias in AI models and that state laws “sometimes impermissibly regulate beyond state borders, impinging on interstate commerce.”
On Monday, Trump hinted that he would sign an executive order this week that would challenge cumbersome AI regulations at the state level.
Trump said in a Truth Social post on Monday, “There must be only One Rulebook if we are going to continue to lead in AI.”
“We are beating ALL COUNTRIES at this point in the race, but that won’t last long if we are going to have 50 States, many of them bad actors, involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS,” Trump continued. “THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS! AI WILL BE DESTROYED IN ITS INFANCY! I will be doing a ONE RULE Executive Order this week. You can’t expect a company to get 50 Approvals every time they want to do something.”
The order is framed as a provisional measure until Congress is able to establish a national standard to replace the “patchwork of 50 regulatory regimes” that is slowly rising out of the states.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
