Immigration
Birthright Citizenship Under Siege: The Supreme Court’s Crucial Debate on Executive Order 14160
By Attorneys Khushbu Patel and Dilip Patel
In a pivotal moment for immigration law and civil rights, the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the highly controversial case of Trump v. CASA, along with two other significant cases: Trump v. Washington and Trump v. New Jersey. At the heart of these cases is President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which seeks to redefine birthright citizenship — a right that has been a cornerstone of American law since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment over 150 years ago.
Specifically, Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” is an executive order signed by President Trump on Jan. 20, 2025, that seeks to end automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a legal permanent resident or a U.S. citizen prior to the child’s birth. Hence, even if the parents are in the U.S. in full legal status, such as H-1B or F-1 students, their children born in the U.S. would not be citizens by birth. Every court that has reviewed the issue has held that the Executive Order is unconstitutional and issued nationwide injunctions against implementation of the EO.
The Historical Context
To understand the stakes involved, we must first appreciate the historical backdrop. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, was designed to ensure that all individuals born in the U.S. are granted automatic citizenship. This legal principle has remained largely unchallenged until now. The Trump Administration argues that it seeks to correct what it sees as a judicial overreach that has extended birthright citizenship to individuals who should not qualify.
The Administration’s Position
At the Supreme Court, the Trump Administration did not want the Court to determine the validity of the Order but instead is seeking to limit the injunctions to only the people who sued the administration. This would force everyone else affected by the executive order to fight their citizenship cases individually – something many Justices found concerning.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned this idea, pointing out the problems it could create if the executive branch could ignore circuit court decisions. Justice Kagan supported her concerns, stating that the administration’s plan seemed chaotic and could lead to confusion about an important legal principle.
The Real-World Implications
The stakes are not only theoretical. New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum emphasized the practical consequences of the executive order: approximately 6,000 babies born out-of-state move to New Jersey each year. Without a single nationwide stay on EO 14160, state agencies would be left to guess the citizenship status of these newborns, leading to potential chaos in crucial systems such as Medicaid and public education.
Kelsi Corkran, representing CASA, reinforced this argument, pointing out that the EO makes no distinction between the named plaintiffs and the wider public. This lack of clarity requires a nationwide injunction to protect all affected individuals, not just a select few.
The Justices’ Concerns
The Justices expressed visible concern about the implications of allowing the executive order to go into effect without broad legal protections. They grappled with the potential fallout: Justice Kavanaugh raised the question of who would inform maternity wards about citizenship procedures if the injunctions were lifted. The vague 30-day “ramp-up” period suggested by the U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer did little to ease these concerns.
Moreover, Justice Jackson warned that the administration’s position could turn the judiciary into a game of “Catch Me If You Can,” where the executive can ignore unfavorable decisions outside a select few districts. This concern was echoed by Justices across the ideological spectrum, indicating that the debate over EO 14160 goes beyond traditional partisan lines.
What Lies Ahead
Chief Justice Roberts hinted at a potential compromise, suggesting that the Court could expedite its decision on the merits while tightening the doctrine surrounding nationwide injunctions. This approach could allow for a careful balancing act —preserving the status quo while addressing the broader implications of the administration’s actions.
As the Court deliberates, the potential decision is expected by the end of June 2025, and the implications for birthright citizenship, executive authority, and the rule of law are profound. With the Justices clearly uneasy about the chaos that could ensue without a nationwide injunction, the argument emphasizes the need for a robust judicial response to protect fundamental rights.
Conclusion: The Path Forward
The ongoing legal battle surrounding the EO is more than just a dispute over birthright citizenship; it is a test of the limits of executive power and the resilience of American democracy. As the Supreme Court prepares to make its ruling, the nation watches closely, aware that the outcome could reshape the landscape of citizenship and immigration law for generations to come.
In this moment of uncertainty, one thing remains clear: the courts have a pivotal role to play in safeguarding the rights of individuals against overreach, ensuring that the principles of justice and equality are upheld in an ever-evolving society. The implications of this case will ripple through the legal system, affecting not only those directly involved but also the fabric of American identity itself.Conclusion
The recent trend of SEVIS terminations and F-1 visa revocations poses a serious threat to the rights and opportunities of international students in the U.S. As these enforcement measures continue, it is vital for students to remain informed, proactive, and vigilant about their immigration status. Legal assistance, thorough documentation, and open communication with educational institutions are essential steps in navigating this complex and evolving landscape. If you have been impacted by the SEVIS termination and F-1 visa revocation, it is important to contact an immigration attorney to discuss your options.
Tampa Bay area welcomes Attorney Khushbu Patel
We are pleased to introduce Attorney Khushbu Patel to our readers. Khushbu is an experienced immigration attorney and has recently joined the Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney law firm to work with Dilip Patel, who writes our immigration articles. Khushbu brings with her a wealth of knowledge in immigration law and a passion for helping individuals and families navigate the complexities of the immigration process.
Khushbu was born and raised in Richmond, Va., where she developed a strong foundation in legal principles and a deep commitment to serving her community. She earned her law degree from a respected institution, Rutgers Law School, where she developed a keen understanding of the challenges faced by immigrants in the United States.
She married in April 2024 and recently moved to the Tampa area with her husband, who works in commercial contracting. Khushbu’s move to Tampa not only marks a new chapter in her personal journey but also allows her to contribute her expertise to the growing community in the region. Fluent in Gujarati, she is an active member of the BAPS Swaminarayan Mandir in Thonotosassa, Florida.
We are thrilled to welcome Khushbu to our readers and look forward to the invaluable information she will provide to them in the field of immigration law.