On April 21, the Supreme Court of the United States convened to hear oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara. The case is about the constitutionality of abolishing the promise of birthright citizenship — the legal precedent establishing that all people born in the United States are citizens of the country. The Supreme Court is expected to respond with a verdict by early July.
The debate in Trump v. Barbara centers around Executive Order 14160, which President Donald Trump signed on Jan. 20, 2025. “The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” Trump wrote in the order. “[T]he Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”
The Constitution’s 14th Amendment says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The January executive order declares that all people who are born in the United States after Feb. 20, 2025 to non-citizen parents are non-citizens under the 14th Amendment. Since the order’s signing, it has received backlash from the American public, with one survey The Hill conducted finding that 64% of American adults support birthright citizenship. Additionally, multiple federal judges have blocked the order on the grounds that it is a violation of constitutional rights.
Barbara is a pseudonym for three families in the United States with children born after Feb. 20, 2025 who therefore would not be considered citizens under Trump’s order. They argue the executive order withholds their children’s Fourteenth Amendment right to citizenship, which is a constitutional violation. The Trump administration argues the citizenship clause does not apply to the Barbara children because these children’s parents are not U.S. citizens, the children are not subject to the country’s jurisdiction.
If the Supreme Court decides the case in favor of Trump, about 255,000 children would be born without citizenship each year. On a larger scale, Trump is altering the widely accepted interpretation of the Constitution, thereby paving the way for future cases to question the Constitution. If SCOTUS rules in favor of Barbara, birthright citizenship will function as it historically has.
History department chair and Constitutional Law teacher Josie Rodberg considered the case in the context of the Constitution. “To me, this seems like a pretty clear-cut case where the text of the Constitution is clear about what it means,” she said. “The Trump administration doesn’t like what it means and is trying to put forward a pretty convoluted argument. … We’re going to see the Supreme Court in action in its role as the final interpreter of the Constitution.”
President Trump’s supporters widely backed the executive order, with many joining groups in support of the potential end to birthright citizenship. American lawyer Gene Hamilton founded America First Legal in 2021 and has used the group to support Trump in various legal battles, including the most recent immigration and birthright citizenship cases.
“The Supreme Court must intervene to restore the Constitution’s original meaning, protect national sovereignty, and ensure citizenship remains grounded in loyalty to the United States and its laws,” wrote Daniel Epstein, Vice President of America First Legal, in a brief on the organization’s website.
Students and faculty in the Kids of Immigrants affinity space have held discussions about the executive order and its implications for their lives. “To me, the broader significance is about who gets included in the American identity and who feels protected by the law. … I’ve rarely felt represented by the legal system or even the political system it springs from,” wrote Rizal Adanza, KOI faculty adviser and associate director of communications, in an email interview. “I worry that policies like this can contribute to fear and division, particularly among immigrant communities and communities of color.”
Classic Shulman ’28, who will co-lead KOI next year, noticed differences in how she and her peers relate to Trump v. Barbara. “Most people I know in my community have parents who were born here and were born here themselves. I think their reaction comes more from an empathetical standpoint, instead of ‘Whoa, my life might get threatened,’” she said. “My mom is an immigrant, and I’m very closely tied to that aspect of my identity. [This case] hits close to home, and I feel like I have more of an emotional reaction to it than an analytical one.”
As debate over Trump v. Barbara continues, many are questioning how their lives will be affected by the ruling. “[M]any peoples’ livelihoods are at stake because almost everyone that this affects won’t have a safe place to go if this … executive order passes.,” wrote Gibson Eberhart ’29, who will co-lead KOI with Shulman next year, in an email interview. “[M]illions of people are depending on [SCOTUS] to make the right choice.”