The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on a controversial executive order that could deny birthright citizenship to children of immigrants, raising significant concerns for families across the United States.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on April 1 regarding a challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship. This order, if upheld, could have profound implications for immigrant families by denying automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who lack permanent legal status.
The case, titled Barbara vs. Trump, contests Trump’s January 21, 2025, executive order, which asserts that babies born in the U.S. to parents without permanent legal status will not automatically receive citizenship. The Asian Law Caucus, in collaboration with the ACLU, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the State Democracy Defenders Fund, filed the lawsuit.
Four lower courts have already issued temporary injunctions against the enforcement of the executive order, indicating significant legal pushback against its implementation.
Winnie Kao, senior counsel for impact litigation at the Asian Law Caucus, emphasized the broad reach of the executive order. “It targets not just babies whose parents are undocumented, but also those born to individuals here legally on work visas, student visas, asylum seekers, DACA recipients, and others,” she stated during a March 26 press briefing attended by various organizations involved in the lawsuit.
Kao further argued that the executive order contradicts the text and historical context of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. “This executive order would strip thousands of U.S.-born children of their rights as U.S. citizens, permanently marginalize them from our democracy, and leave them vulnerable to immigration enforcement,” she noted. “If the court upholds the government’s theories, the citizenship of other Americans could also be called into question.”
Asian American activist Helen Zia highlighted the historical significance of the case, referencing Wong Kim Ark, an Asian American man born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents. Ark faced legal challenges when he returned to the U.S. after visiting China, as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 barred his entry. He fought in court to assert his citizenship, ultimately leading to a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to all born in the U.S.
The 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Tom Wolf, director of Democracy Initiatives at the Brennan Center for Justice, clarified the scope of the amendment in a previous interview, noting that birthright citizenship extends to the children of anyone subject to federal law, regardless of their immigration status, with the exception of foreign diplomats and their children.
However, if the Supreme Court upholds Trump’s executive order, millions of immigrant children could be affected. Zia, whose parents were undocumented when she was born, expressed her fears about potential denaturalization after more than seven decades of living in the U.S. “Where would I go? Would I be deported to an El Salvadoran prison?” she questioned.
Zia’s concerns resonate with many Asian American immigrants facing uncertainty about their futures and the futures of their American-born children. Notably, Trump’s executive order specifies that only children born after January 21, 2025, would be subject to the ban on birthright citizenship.
Several attorneys involved in the lawsuit have indicated that implementing the executive order retroactively would be unfeasible.
Anisa Rahim, legal director for the South Asian American Justice Collaborative, pointed out that South Asian Americans would be particularly vulnerable if the ban is enforced. “It would deter talented individuals from migrating to the United States, harm vital sectors of the U.S. economy, and risk statelessness for U.S.-born individuals,” she stated.
Rahim also raised concerns about the green card backlog affecting South Asian immigrants. According to the Cato Institute, approximately 1.2 million Indians with approved green card applications are currently waiting for their green cards, a process that could take up to eight decades due to per-country caps limiting the number of green cards available to any single country.
Each year, only 140,000 employment-based visas are allocated across all countries, with about 9,800 designated for individuals from India. Those with approved green card applications are not considered lawful permanent residents until they obtain their green cards, which means their children are not eligible for birthright citizenship.
Rahim warned of a potential brain drain if the executive order is upheld, noting that Indians represent significant portions of the tech, healthcare, and hospitality industries in the U.S. “What we’re preparing for is this idea that our community members would be stateless,” said Roslyne Shiao, co-executive director of AAPI New Jersey. “There would be this underclass of people who live in our country that are extremely vulnerable to being discriminated against and not allowed in certain spaces,” she added.
The outcome of this case could reshape the landscape of citizenship rights in the United States, impacting countless families and individuals who have built their lives in the country.
According to India Currents, the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision could resonate far beyond the immediate legal context, affecting the very fabric of American society.