The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in one of the most consequential immigration cases in decades, as the Court discussed President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. A decision that could ultimately reshape how millions of children born on American soil are recognized as citizens.
At the heart of Wednesday’s oral arguments is Trump’s 2025 executive order directing federal agencies to stop recognizing automatic citizenship for children born in the United States if neither parent is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident.
According to the Pew Research Center, roughly 320,000 babies were born in 2023 to mothers who were either unauthorized immigrants or held temporary legal status, which makes up around 9% of all U.S. births.
Alito Cuts to the Chase
Justice Samuel Alito opened on Wednesday by pressing the question of how an 1868 constitutional amendment should apply to a problem – illegal immigration – that didn’t exist at the time of its ratification.
Alito borrowed an idea from the late Justice Scalia and used an analogy to explain it: a 19th-century theft statute can still be applied to stealing a microwave oven, even though microwaves didn’t exist when the law was written. The same logic, Alito suggested, applies to the 14th Amendment and illegal immigration.
Solicitor General John Sauer agreed, arguing that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” basically means a broad idea rooted in allegiance – one that’s flexible enough to handle modern situations, situations that the people who wrote the 14th Amendment back in Reconstruction times never could have imagined.
Jackson’s Wallet Analogy Draws Fire
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had one of the more eyebrow-raising moments of the day when she tried to explain her position on birthright citizenship, using a vacation in Japan as her example.
“If I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me,” Jackson said. “There’s this relationship based on, even though I’m a temporary traveler… I’m still locally owing allegiance in that sense. Is that the right way to think about it? And if so, doesn’t that explain why both temporary residents and undocumented people would have that kind of, quote-unquote, allegiance, just by virtue of being in the United States?”
Critics were quick to point out that the analogy may have backfired. Journalist Miranda Devine noted on X that Japan – the very country Jackson used as an example – has some of the most restrictive birthright citizenship laws in the world, granting citizenship only through bloodline to registered Japanese citizens.
“…Of all the countries to mention Japan is probably the least helpful to her cause. Babies born in Japan can only become citizens if they have Japanese blood and are born to registered Japanese citizens whose names appear in a special book. One of my sisters was born in Japan and lived there until she was five but was not granted citizenship because our parents were ‘gaijin’ – foreigners. And nobody minded because those were the rules,” Devine wrote.
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R) posted: “That’s not what allegiance means.”
That’s not what allegiance means. https://t.co/jQg17pAG5a
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) April 2, 2026
What’s at Stake for America, and Texas
The case carries real implications for the Lone Star State. In Bexar County alone, an average of 5,400 babies per year were born to immigrant mothers between 2016 and 2024, according to CDC data – though it’s unclear how many of those mothers were present illegally or on temporary visas.
Trump’s order would not apply retroactively, meaning children already born would retain their citizenship status. Going forward, certain children could be denied work authorization, Social Security numbers, passports, and public benefits.
Beyond the immediate policy stakes, some Americans have argued that the national security threats are even more alarming.
Reports from as far back as 2015 from the Center for Immigration Studies state that no fewer than 500 companies in China were already offering so-called “birth tourism” services, assisting pregnant women in traveling to the United States to give birth so their children could secure U.S. citizenship.
What Comes Next
A ruling is likely expected before the Court’s term ends this summer.
Trump framed the issue plainly ahead of this week’s arguments, writing on his Truth Social platform: “Birthright Citizenship has to do with the babies of slaves, not Chinese Billionaires who have 56 kids, all of whom ‘become’ American Citizens. One of the many Great Scams of our time!”
“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow “Birthright” Citizenship!,” Trump added.
