On May 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments in one of the most consequential immigration cases in recent history — centered on President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which aims to end automatic U.S. citizenship for children born to non-citizen parents, including those here legally on H-1B, L-1, or other temporary visas.
The courtroom was packed. Outside, demonstrators held signs like “Born Here, Belong Here” and “Children Are Not Visitors”. Inside, the justices were deeply divided, raising fundamental questions about who gets to be American — and who gets to decide.
The justices appeared divided over the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions blocking such policies. A decision is expected by late June 2025.
Key Highlights from the Hearing
Nationwide Injunctions Take Center Stage
Rather than ruling directly on whether the executive order is constitutional, the Court focused on whether lower courts have the power to block federal policies nationwide.
-
Trump’s legal team argued that these so-called nationwide injunctions are too broad and allow a single judge to block policies for the whole country.
-
Lawyers for civil rights groups and states argued that the order is unconstitutional and that blocking it nationwide is necessary to prevent confusion and harm.
Justices Were Clearly Split
Here’s a breakdown of how key justices responded:
-
Justice Neil Gorsuch asked pointedly if it was appropriate for a single federal judge to wield such sweeping power. “Why should one district judge bind the entire country?” he questioned.
-
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back, emphasizing the chaos that would erupt if different states had different rules for who is a citizen. She said, “Citizenship can't be a patchwork. Either a child is a citizen, or they're not.”
-
Justice Amy Coney Barrett surprised some observers by appearing to side, at times, with Justice Elena Kagan, defending her against interruptions and clarifying legal complexity around the limits of judicial review.
-
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked whether limiting injunctions would force every impacted state to file its own lawsuit, overwhelming the courts and delaying justice.
Background: What’s at Stake?
This case revolves around the 14th Amendment, which says:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
This has long been interpreted to mean that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen — regardless of their parents' immigration status.
Trump’s executive order, issued on his first day back in office in January 2025, argues that children of non-citizen parents — even if here legally — are not automatically entitled to citizenship. The legal theory backing this is highly controversial and has been rejected by decades of precedent, including the landmark 1898 decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
What Comes Next?
No ruling was issued today. The Supreme Court will deliberate in the coming weeks, and a final decision is expected by late June 2025.
The court could rule in several ways:
-
Uphold the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, leaving the order blocked.
-
Limit injunctions to specific plaintiffs or states, potentially letting the executive order go into effect in places that didn’t sue.
-
Decline to decide on birthright citizenship directly, focusing only on legal procedure — for now.
Until a ruling is issued, the current law guaranteeing birthright citizenship remains unchanged.
Why This Matters to the Indian Immigrant Community
This case is personal for thousands of Indian families in the U.S. — especially those here on:
-
H-1B work visas
-
L-1 intra-company transfer visas
-
F-1 student visas
If Trump’s executive order eventually takes effect, children born to these legal visa holders may no longer receive U.S. citizenship at birth.
That means:
-
No automatic passports
-
No federal aid or benefits
-
No right to stay permanently without later applying for visas
It would turn Desi-American newborns into “non-citizens” in the very country where they were born — raising fears of statelessness, deportation risks, and broken families.
Voices from the Court and Beyond
“The idea that children born here might not be Americans is terrifying,” said one Indian father from New Jersey who attended the protest. “We came here legally. We contribute. Our kids were born here — how are they not American?”
“This is the most important case for immigrants since DACA,” one attorney representing South Asian families said outside the courtroom.
In Summary: Today Was a Big Day — But the Final Call Is Still Weeks Away
-
The Supreme Court heard but did not rule on Trump's birthright citizenship order.
-
The debate focused on how far judges can go in blocking federal policies.
-
A decision is expected by late June 2025.
-
Until then, birthright citizenship is still protected under existing law.
📢 Stay with Asia91 for all updates as this case unfolds. Your story. Your voice. Your future.