Trump Admin Grapples With Supreme Court Dilemma on Birthright Citizenship

Newsweek

2 days ago

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The Trump administration is seeking more time in federal court as it considers how to bring a challenge to birthright citizenship before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a consent motion filed on August 19 in the District of Maryland, government lawyers requested an additional 30 days to respond to an amended complaint in CASA Inc. v. Trump.
The case contests executive order 14160, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." The order denies citizenship at birth when the mother is unlawfully present (or lawfully but temporarily present) and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice for comment by email outside regular working hours on Wednesday.
Why It Matters
The case goes to the core of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, which for more than a century has guaranteed citizenship to almost everyone born on U.S. soil.
A successful challenge could affect hundreds of thousands of children born each year to undocumented parents, while also testing the limits of presidential power to redefine constitutional rights through executive orders.
With the Trump administration signaling that it plans to seek a Supreme Court review, the litigation has the potential to reshape immigration law and the broader debate over American identity.
What To Know
The plaintiffs, a coalition of immigrant-rights organizations led by CASA, amended their complaint in June.
On July 18, the government's deadline to respond was extended to August 22. The new motion seeks to push that date back to September 22.
According to the filing, the delay is tied to the administration's broader legal strategy.
The Justice Department acknowledged that multiple lawsuits were pending against the executive order across different jurisdictions. To resolve the matter more definitively, the solicitor general is preparing to ask the Supreme Court to take up the issue in its next term.
"To that end, the Solicitor General of the United States plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Executive Order next Term, but he has not yet determined which case or combination of cases to take to the Court," government attorneys wrote.
The administration emphasized that the extension request was not an attempt to stall the proceedings. "This request is not made for purposes of delay, and no party will be prejudiced by the relief requested herein, particularly because Plaintiffs consent to the same," the motion said.
On August 7, the court in Maryland granted a classwide preliminary injunction, applying nationwide to members of the certified class.
Birthright citizenship newspaper headlines on the U.S. Constitution.
Birthright citizenship newspaper headlines on the U.S. Constitution.
iStock / Getty Images Plus
Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment
Executive order 14160 has drawn criticism from immigrant advocacy groups, which argue that birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.
The constitutional provision says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
The administration, however, has contended that the clause does not extend to the children of undocumented immigrants.
By moving toward a Supreme Court review, the administration appears to be seeking a definitive ruling on the scope of the citizenship clause. The outcome could have significant implications for immigration law and the legal status of U.S.-born children of noncitizen parents.
What People Are Saying
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticizing the administration's approach in the Supreme Court, said on May 15: "Your argument … would turn our justice system into a 'catch me if you can' kind of regime, in which everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people's rights."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, emphasizing constitutional precedent, added: "So, as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents."
What Happens Next
If the Trump administration's request for more time is approved, the government's deadline would move to September 22. For now, a nationwide injunction continues to block the order, leaving it unenforceable.
Justice Department lawyers say they are considering which case to present to the Supreme Court for review in the next term, a move that could bring arguments before the justices in 2026. Both sides have agreed to the extension, and the government emphasized that no party would be harmed by the delay. While the extension keeps the litigation on hold, the broader fight over birthright citizenship is poised to escalate.
On June 27, the court ruled on nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA but did not decide the merits of birthright citizenship. The administration now plans to seek a full review next term on the lawfulness of the executive order itself. If the court grants the review, it will put the question of the core citizenship clause before the justices in a way not seen since United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).