Supreme Court Weighs Decision on Birthright Citizenship: What To Know

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Newsweek

Nov 21, 2025 at 02:27 PM EST


The U.S. Supreme Court is meeting in private on Friday to consider taking on President Donald Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to noncitizen parents, according to the Associated Press.

Why It Matters

Moments after taking office for his second term, Trump signed an executive order titled "PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.” Trump's executive action seeks to prevent children born on U.S. soil from automatically receiving citizenship if neither parent was an American citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth.

The concept of birthright citizenship has long been established in the U.S., with the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States."

Trump pledged to launch the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history. His administration reported in September that “2 million illegal aliens have been removed or self-deported in just 250 days.”

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-weighs-decision-on-birthright-citizenship-what-to-know-11090545

---

This has been simmering on the back burner while the tariffs (and a million other issues) were in the spotlight.

The SCOTUS can complete the destruction of the United States of America if they even attempt to consider the 14th Amendment (where "Amendments" are something that require a full court press to enact and to repeal via the same process), "unconstitutional", or even try to cherry-pick some nonsense "exceptions". I believe that 4 Appellate Courts were like - "Oh HELL no" about that E.O.

[yankee87]

1. 6 - 3 Decision

I have a bad feeling that SCOTUS is going to give him this and not tariffs.

[kimbutgar]

2. Wouldn't that affect the orange piggy since his mother was not born in America?

And 4 of his children were born of mothers who were naturalized?

[reACTIONary]

12. No. According to the EO....

... which is none the less bull shit, one parent who is a citizen is enough. And naturalization makes you a citizen, so in this case, two parents are citizens.

[Timewas]

3. Seems to me

Since it is actually in the constitution,and I don't see any ambiguity in the wording,that it would take an ammendment to change that not just an opinion.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. "Since it is actually in the constitution,and I don't see any ambiguity in the wording,...

that it would take an ammendment to change that"

There was nothing "ambiguous" about this -

18th Amendment

Amendment XVIII

Section 1.

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.

The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

(snip)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxviii

that lead to this -

21st Amendment

Amendment XXI

Section 1.

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

(snip)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxi

[Timewas]

8. What I said n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

9. I am interpreting what you said

with it not requiring an amendment to change it based on the explicit language (and I would agree). But I am showing how they have done an amendment to repeal a previous amendment and if the SCOTUS starts cherry-picking and giving out hints, or even throws out the 14th Amendment, then there's a whole convoluted process that would be needed to put it back, which might not happen, and we're screwed.

[mgardener]

4. Trump made money from doing exactly that

What about the children of Russian mothers who had their babies in the US while staying at Trump's hotels in Florida?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/birth-tourism-brings-russian-baby-boom-miami-n836121

https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/to-the-contrary/clip/ttc-extra-russian-birth-tourism-trump-properties-qj0wgl

https://theweek.com/speedreads/748344/russian-birth-tourists-are-flocking-miami-trump-condos-give-birth-american-citizens

It was OK when Trump was making money from it.

[AZJonnie]

5. Wait, "if neither parent WAS"? Is this fuckhead trying to do this RETROACTIVELY?

Or is this just unclear wording by the author? SCOTUS cannot possibly strip millions of people's citizenship with the stroke of 5 pens, can they?!? Leave them all with citizenship NOWHERE?

I mean, obviously the idea that it's Constitutional even moving forward w/o a new amendment is ludicrous given the clear wording of the amendment but I cannot even fathom doing it retroactively.

Although, that might be SCOTUS's only avenue to give the Mango Menace what he wants, because they'd probably have to (arbitrarily) rule that the enforcement of the amendment all along was due to flawed interpretation and that therefore would imply that what was done in the past is null and void (similar to the tariff conundrum).

I cannot believe this is a serious question/case before them that they are considering

[reACTIONary]

13. No. The executive order....

.... while it is bullshit, is not retractive.

[AZJonnie]

14. Even so, I'm not sure the SCOTUS can give it a go-ahead without it declaring it applies retroactively

Because I'd imagine the only way they could allow the EO is by declaring that the 14th Amendment simply doesn't apply to a specific class of people, due to an ongoing historical misinterpretation. Which could mean that it cannot just be applied only to people born in the future. I would guess it's either rejected as unconstitutional (as it should be) or literally everyone born here w/o at least one parent being a citizen or natural-born citizen at the time of birth would become no longer a citizen. But I'm not a lawyer, so ... this is just my worry.

[reACTIONary]

20. There are multiple "practical" problems with this EO....

.... and you have hit on one that I haven't heard mentioned as yet. So this conundrum, what to do about all those already citizens, would be another thorn in the foot that might help keep the justices from hobbling in that direction.

I hope.

[PSPS]

7. "meeting in private"

The way the corrupt supreme court justices roll is this:

1. Determine what you want the decision to be.
2. Compare that to what the law says now.
3. Discard any stare decisis.
4. Without breaking your back, make up a convoluted "opinion" that somehow "justifies" your move from #2 to #1 regardless of its embarrassing lack of legal merit. Feel free to throw in bible verses.
5. Collect that bag with your name and a large dollar sign on it when you retire to your home-bound bullet-proof limousine with its armed guards.

[AZJonnie]

15. Oh, and maybe include a quote published in 1512, from the Vice-Mayor of West Bumfuckshire, England

[turbinetree]

10. Well............. the maga 6 might have to look in the mirror and ask if there relatives were immigrants................

[cstanleytech]

11. It's pretty simple. A change like this takes a constitutional amendment just like the second amendment regarding guns.

[Shipwack]

16. We've seen this game before.

One state declined to have Trump on the ballot because he was accused of insurrection. The language was plain and unambiguous.

The Supremes decided that since the amendment wasn’t written well enough, it could be disregarded.

I’m ready for a repeat. They might even copy/paste most of the previous decision to save time.

[BumRushDaShow]

17. They did a carve-out for 45

and actually let NM's Cuoy Griffin hang from that Clause - Supreme Court lets ‘insurrectionist’ ban against New Mexico official stand

[Shipwack]

19. Thanks! Forgot about that part.

The Supremes rule so that only their guy gets a deal. See also “Bush v.Gore”.

If Trump running for a third term was brought before them, they would find a way to let Trump run, but not Obama.

[Cirsium]

18. Virtually all of us

300+ million people are US citizens by virtue of having been born in the US. How can they strip all of those people of citizenship? It is absurd that it is even an issue.

[mdbl]

21. What a bunch of asswipes

They could have just rejected it out of plain ignorance of the Constitution.