Live Coverage: Birthright Citizenship SCOTUS Oral Arguments
What’s Next for Birthright Citizenship
Thank you to the ACLU community who came to the Supreme Court today to defend birthright citizenship.
You still have time to add your name to our petition to defend birthright citizenship while we wait for a decision from the Supreme Court. And make sure you subscribe to our email list so we can keep you updated about the latest updates in all of our cases before the Supreme Court this term.
A Message from José Andrés
Let's be the America that believes in longer tables, not higher walls.
The 14th Amendment Speaks for Itself
Hundreds rallied outside the Supreme Court today in defense of birthright citizenship.
The Constitution, not the President, defines who is a citizen. And we aren't allowing President Trump's abuse of power to go unanswered.
President Trump's Reaction to Our Supreme Court Case
The president needed a reminder of what the Constitution says — we gave it to him.
Cecillia Wang Reflects After Oral Arguments
Right after delivering oral arguments to the Supreme Court in defense of birthright citizenship, our National Legal Director Cecillia Wang reflected on this case and what it means to be a child of immigrants.
Born in the USA
We're honored that the one and only Bruce Springsteen trusted us with the use of his iconic anthem ahead of our landmark Supreme Court case defending birthright citizenship.
Join us to protect the right to citizenship for babies born across the nation at ACLU.org/BornInUSA
Padma Lakshmi: President Trump doesn’t have the power to decide who is an American
"The guarantee of citizenship is the fundamental American promise. If you're born here, you belong here. And if you feel that you belong here, you are more motivated to contribute to our shared culture here. I struggle to see how tearing this rich tapestry apart would benefit Americans in any way."
President Trump Watched Arguments at our SCOTUS Case Today
School is in session at the Supreme Court.
We went to the highest court in the land to remind President Trump that he doesn't have the power to unilaterally change the Constitution.
Oral Arguments in Trump v. Barbara Have Finished
Our National Legal Director Cecillia Wang argued our defense of birthright citizenship before the Supreme Court.
Cecillia is a daughter of immigrants and has dedicated her career to fighting for our civil liberties.
We're honored to have her at the helm as we defend immigrant families with everything we’ve got.
Could You Convince Donald Trump You’re a U.S. Citizen?
"The consequences of ending birthright citizenship do not only fall on immigrants — under [President Trump's] policy, all Americans will find it more difficult to claim the rights of citizenship."
Jacob Hamburger, a law professor at Marquette University, explores what would need to be done to implement President Trump's executive order to dismantle birthright citizenship. And it's not just immigrant families who would suffer under this policy.
Many babies would fall through the cracks, even babies born to American citizens who never thought they would be harmed by President Trump's executive order.
Listen to Cecillia Wang's Opening Arguments
"Ask any American what our citizenship rule is and they'll tell you: Everyone born here is a citizen alike."
Listen to our National Legal Director Cecillia Wang's full opening remarks during oral arguments for Trump v. Barbara at the Supreme Court this morning.
The History of Birthright Citizenship
President Trump doesn't have the power to override the 14th Amendment.
Watch our latest episode of Making Sense where ACLU President Deborah Archer breaks down our Supreme Court case defending birthright citizenship.
315,000 Defending Birthright Citizenship
Over 315,000 people signed our petition in defense of birthright citizenship — and we brought your names with us to D.C.
Thank you for adding your name to safeguard citizenship for all babies born in the U.S.
ACLU President Deborah Archer: Ending Birthright Citizenship Would Affect Us All
"The America President Trump is working to create — one where a child's citizenship is dictated by their parents' immigration status, not where they are born and raised—could compound this chaos. Revoking birthright citizenship would invite even more discriminatory assumptions about who is—and isn’t — 'really' American."
ACLU President Deborah Archer warns that our nation's history offers a chilling preview of what would happen if the Supreme Court fails to defend birthright citizenship — and three recent ACLU plaintiffs highlight those dangers.
One ACLU plaintiff stopped by ICE in Minnesota repeatedly told them, "I’m a citizen. I’m a citizen." DHS agents told him "that don't matter," refused to look at his proof of citizenship, and drove him to an ICE building in south Minneapolis. Agents grabbed another witness in the lawsuit out of his car at a gas station, handcuffed him, and when he said, "I'm an American citizen," replied to him, "Why don't you go back to your country?" And in Florida, the ACLU recently represented a man named Peter Sean Brown – a Black, natural-born U.S. citizen – who was unlawfully detained and nearly deported as a result of ICE's collaboration with a Florida sheriff.
History tells us that all people of color would face worse treatment, even those born on U.S. soil.
Learn More About Our Clients in Trump v. Barbara
As our National Legal Director Cecillia Wang begins her arguments to the Supreme Court, learn more about our clients in this case.
Watch Live: Supreme Court Rally
We're rallying outside the Supreme Court with our co-counsel, our partners at We Are CASA, and hundreds of supporters to protect birthright citizenship. Watch live.
Over a Century of Supreme Court Precedent
Birthright citizenship was a principle the United States, at its founding, inherited from England.
The 14th Amendment and its Citizenship Clause secured this right in the Constitution in 1868, and in 1898, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Constitution protects birthright citizenship for children born in the United States no matter what their parents' citizenship or immigration status is.
Learn more about the history of birthright citizenship:
The ACLU’s Legal Team: What Does It Mean to Be an American?
"President Trump wants to create a nation divided by parentage; one where children can be born in this country, live their whole lives here, and yet be completely excluded from all the rights and duties of full membership in our society.
That is not the America we know and love. In our America, every child born here is an equal citizen. And that is ultimately what the Barbara case is all about."
Cody Wofsy, Deputy Director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead counsel on Trump v. Barbara, outlines the full history of birthright citizenship in the United States and asks whether we'll adhere to the best of American history — or turn the clock back to exclusion and division.
Listen Live: Trump v. Barbara Oral Arguments
Oral arguments have started in Trump v. Barbara. Listen now as the ACLU's National Legal Director, Cecillia Wang, presents our case to the Supreme Court.
A Message From the ACLU’s Trump v. Barbara Case Team
We're heading into the Supreme Court soon to argue on behalf of every child born in the United States
President Trump wants to strip away the right to birthright citizenship – the core principle that children born in America are citizens of America, with very limited exceptions. He wants to overturn over a century of Supreme Court precedent, law, and our very Constitution. He thinks that he alone can redefine who belongs in this country and what it means to be American. He's wrong.
Our ACLU community has shown up en masse to support the Constitution – from the over 315,000 people who signed our petition and whose names we're displaying in D.C. with us, to the hundreds rallying outside the Supreme Court right now to cheer our legal team on.
As we head into the court, we'll be thinking about supporters like you — and the thousands of families and children we're fighting for.
Together, we'll defend this American promise.
ACLU Responds to Trump Plan to Attend SCOTUS Arguments Today
Hi everyone, I'm Anthony D. Romero, the Executive Director of the ACLU. Yesterday, President Trump announced his plan to attend today's Supreme Court arguments in Trump v. Barbara, the nationwide class action brought by the ACLU and our partners on behalf of children who would be denied citizenship under Trump's executive order.
If President Trump wishes to come to the Supreme Court to watch the ACLU school him in the meaning of the Constitution and birthright citizenship, we will be glad to sit alongside of him in that very court.
Any effort to distract from the gravity and importance of this case will not succeed. The Supreme Court is up to the task of interpreting and defending the Constitution even under the glare of a sitting president a couple dozen feet away from them.
This is one of the most important cases in the last hundred years. The outcome of this case will very well decide the rights and liberties of over 200,000 children born to immigrant parents each year.
The 14th Amendment guarantees that children born in the United States are citizens. Period.
“My Child is Now a Political Debate”: Hear from Impacted Families
"I would like my baby to grow up in the country where he was born, experiencing the good the U.S. has to offer. But right now, I can barely see those good things anymore."
Families targeted by President Trump's cruel executive order targeting birthright citizenship are worried about what the future holds for their children.
Right now, their children are protected from the order, and there is no reason for families to fear. But the fight is not over — and today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case that will decide their future.
Oral Arguments in Trump v. Barbara Begin Soon
Good morning everyone, and thanks for joining us. The ACLU and our co-counsel — the ACLU's of New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts, the Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, and Democracy Defenders Fund — are at the Supreme Court today for oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, where we're defending birthright citizenship. And our very own National Legal Director, Cecillia Wang, will be arguing the case.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump signed an executive order seeking to dismantle the right to birthright citizenship for nearly all children born in the U.S., even though the 14th Amendment guarantees that right. Within hours, the ACLU and our partners sued to block that cruel action. Federal courts have since repeatedly blocked the administration from implementing the executive order, finding it violates the Constitution, over a century of Supreme Court precedent, and a longstanding federal statute.
Ending birthright citizenship would upend the law and the lives of hundreds of thousands of families by creating a permanent subclass of people born in the United States who are denied their rights as American citizens.
The Constitution, not the President, defines who is a citizen.
You can read more about Trump v. Barbara here. Refresh this page throughout the day to see more live updates.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryApr 2026
Immigrants' Rights
States Have The Power To Hold Federal Agents Accountable By Allowing People To Sue Them For Rights Violations. Explore News & Commentary.States Have the Power to Hold Federal Agents Accountable by Allowing People to Sue Them for Rights Violations
Amid rampant abuse by federal agents, state legislatures can pass critical laws that allow people to take federal agents to court for violating their rights. -
Press ReleaseApr 2026
Immigrants' Rights
Supreme Court Arguments Wrap In Landmark Challenge To Trump Birthright Citizenship Executive Order . Explore Press Release.Supreme Court Arguments Wrap in Landmark Challenge to Trump Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Trump v. Barbara, a nationwide class action brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, and the Democracy Defenders Fund on behalf of children who would be denied citizenship under an executive order issued by President Trump. The groups presented arguments challenging the administration’s efforts to dismantle birthright citizenship — the legal principle guaranteed by the 14th Amendment that babies born in the United States are U.S. citizens — highlighting how Trump’s executive order flouts the Constitution’s dictates, longstanding Supreme Court precedent, a statute passed by Congress, and fundamental American values. Courts have uniformly blocked the Trump administration from implementing the executive order. A Supreme Court decision is expected by the end of June or early July. The following is comment from the co-counsel in this case: “All of us born in this country are Americans, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. That is the principle we defended before the United States Supreme Court today,” said Cecillia Wang, ACLU national legal director, who argued the case before the court. “I left the courtroom thinking about my parents and so many families who came here seeking refuge, opportunity, and the American way of life. We couldn’t be more confident that this unlawful, un-American executive order will be struck down.” “Today’s argument before the Supreme Court was on behalf of the countless families who would be harmed, especially children and families of color, if the Trump administration’s birthright citizenship executive order takes effect,” said Morenike Fajana, senior counsel at the Legal Defense Fund. “We are confident in our case against such an unlawful attempt to rewrite the Constitution in a way that is antithetical to who we are as a nation.” “Birthright citizenship was affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, when a Chinese American community challenged the idea that people like them could never fully belong. For Asian Americans, that history is deeply personal — it is a right we helped shape and defend,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director at Asian Law Caucus. “Trump’s executive order attempts to erase that legacy, denying families the dignity, stability, and belonging that the Constitution guarantees to every child born in this country. We’re fighting today to ensure that in our democracy, no president gets to re-define who is born a citizen and who is not.” “Birthright citizenship has been clearly protected for well over a century by the plain text of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and congressional enactment. An attack on this indisputable right is an assault on the Constitution itself,” said Amb. Norm Eisen (ret.), co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund. “If this indisputable legal principle is up for grabs, so is anything in the Constitution and American law. That cannot be the case and so birthright citizenship must stand.” “Our Constitution and the more than a century of court decisions on this topic are overwhelmingly clear: no politician can decide who among those born in this country is worthy of citizenship. We are fighting this cruel executive order to ensure that every child born in the United States has their right to citizenship protected instead of being relegated to a permanent, multigenerational subclass of people born in the U.S. but who are denied full rights,” said SangYeob Kim, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the ACLU of New Hampshire. “Birthright citizenship is a cornerstone of our democracy, deeply rooted in the American legal tradition and enshrined in our Constitution,” said Carol Rose, executive director at the ACLU of Massachusetts. “The 14th Amendment and centuries of precedent categorically reject the maintenance of a permanent underclass. No good-faith reading of the law can hold otherwise. That is why we are asking the Supreme Court to unequivocally reject the Trump administration's unlawful attempt to strip away the fundamental American guarantee that every baby born in this country is equal.” “Birthright citizenship has been the law of the land since the 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868,” said ACLU of Maine Executive Director Molly Curren Rowles. “It is a core reason that the United States has been seen for generations as a beacon of freedom and opportunity around the world. Successive waves of immigrants have shaped and reshaped every aspect of our society and culture, from the food we eat and the music we listen to, to our regional accents and religious practices. As Americans, we are bound by our values and commitment to a pluralistic, free society — not by our family heritage. We hope a decision in this critically important case can bring stability at a time when immigrant families across the country face increasing hostility, threats, harm, and uncertainty.” More case background is here. -
Press ReleaseApr 2026
Immigrants' Rights
Aclu Comment On Trump Plan To Attend Supreme Court Arguments In Birthright Citizenship Case. Explore Press Release.ACLU Comment on Trump Plan to Attend Supreme Court Arguments in Birthright Citizenship Case
WASHINGTON — Yesterday, President Trump announced his plan to attend today’s Supreme Court arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a nationwide class action brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and partners on behalf of children who would be denied citizenship under Trump’s executive order. ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero had the following response: “If President Trump wishes to come to the Supreme Court to watch the ACLU school him in the meaning of the Constitution and birthright citizenship, we will be glad to sit alongside of him in that very court. “Any effort to distract from the gravity and importance of this case will not succeed. The Supreme Court is up to the task of interpreting and defending the Constitution even under the glare of a sitting president a couple dozen feet away from them. “This is one of the most important cases in the last hundred years. The outcome of this case will very well decide the rights and liberties of over 200,000 children born to immigrant parents each year. The 14th Amendment guarantees that children born in the United States are citizens. Period.” -
Press ReleaseMar 2026
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
Mahmoud Khalil Asks Full Appeals Court To Reconsider Decision That Would Allow Government To Re-detain Him. Explore Press Release.Mahmoud Khalil Asks Full Appeals Court to Reconsider Decision That Would Allow Government to Re-Detain Him
PHILADELPHIA — Today, Mahmoud Khalil’s legal team asked the full Third Circuit Court of Appeals to re-consider the three-judge panel’s 2-1 decision overturning a lower court’s orders releasing Mr. Khalil on bail and barring the government from detaining or deporting him based on Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s vague and unsupported assertion that Mr. Khalil’s lawful protected speech would “compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.” The panel decision would effectively block anyone in immigration proceedings from challenging their detention on First Amendment grounds in federal court until those proceedings are complete, no matter how long they may take or how unconstitutional the basis for their detention. “There is no world in which Mahmoud should be torn away from his family for a second time and sent back behind bars for his protected speech,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel in the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “In this country, the government cannot punish people just because they don’t like what they have to say, and it is imperative that federal courts are immediately available to halt unconstitutional detentions. That’s what the district court did here, and we think those orders should and will be upheld in the end.” Back in June, the court found that Mr. Khalil was likely to succeed on the merits of his constitutional challenge to his detention and attempted deportation on the Foreign Policy Ground, and it ordered his release on bail based on the extraordinary circumstances of his detention, including the government’s failure to produce any evidence of flight risk or dangerousness. A federal judge granted Mr. Khalil’s request for a preliminary injunction after concluding that he would continue to suffer irreparable harm if the government continued efforts to detain and deport him on the basis of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s determination. In January, two judges on the Third Circuit panel ruled that the lower court’s order should be overturned, without evaluating the merits of his constitutional claims, but because they held the federal court did not have jurisdiction to even consider ordering Mr. Khalil's release for the months or years his immigration proceedings remained ongoing. However the third judge, the Honorable Arianna Freeman dissented, concluded that under Third Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, a federal court can hear Mr. Khalil’s “now-or-never claims” because without immediate federal review, Mr. Khalil will suffer irreparable harm from detention that cannot be remedied after the executive branch’s own administrative immigration process runs its course. As Judge Freeman further explains, the majority opinion “renders meaningful review hollow," and “only this habeas petition can provide Khalil meaningful review of the First Amendment harms from his detention.” The Trump administration and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) illegally arrested and detained Mr. Khalil in direct retaliation for his advocacy for Palestinian rights at Columbia University. Shortly after, DHS transferred him 1,300 miles away to a Louisiana detention facility — ripping him from his then eight-months pregnant wife and legal counsel. During the 104 days he remained in ICE custody, Mr. Khalil missed the birth of his first child. “Federal courts must have the power to step in when the government exploits our country’s immigration system to punish people for their protected speech,” said Bobby Hodgson, Assistant Legal Director at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “This case goes to the heart of what the First Amendment protects: if the Trump administration can target, arrest, and deport Mahmoud for his speech, they can do it to anyone expressing an opinion they disagree with.” Earlier this month, Mr. Khalil’s legal team filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which is controlled by the Department of Justice, asking that it reverse a lower immigration court’s unprecedented decision to sustain a baseless, after-the-fact charge related to his green card application and asking that it terminate the proceedings entirely. As detailed in their appeal, this charge was retaliatory and only added after Mr. Khalil challenged the government’s violations of his constitutional rights. Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the ACLU of New Jersey, and the ACLU of Louisiana. For all case materials, please see here, here, and here.