Soon after taking office in January, President Trump took swift action to reshape the country’s immigration system, one of his key promises in the 2024 campaign. On his first day back in the White House, he issued an executive order to deny citizenship to the U.S.-born children of immigrants who are undocumented or who have temporary legal status, such as those on student or work visas.

However, four federal judges have issued rulings blocking the executive order. A Maryland judge ruled that the order “conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment” and contradicts a 127-year-old Supreme Court precedent guaranteeing citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, known as birthright citizenship. The administration has appealed the decision.

Here’s what you need to know about the current debate over birthright citizenship.

After taking office in January, President Trump took on one of his key campaign promises— reshaping the country’s immigration system. On his first day back in the White House, he issued several executive orders. One of the orders denies citizenship to the U.S.-born children of immigrants who are undocumented or who have temporary legal status, such as those on student or work visas.

Since the executive order, four federal judges have issued rulings blocking it. A Maryland judge ruled that the order “conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment” and contradicts a 127-year-old Supreme Court precedent guaranteeing citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. This is known as birthright citizenship. The administration has appealed the decision.

Here’s what you need to know about the current debate over birthright citizenship.

Birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the first clause of the 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Ratified by Congress in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment, among other things, granted citizenship to Black Americans after the abolition of slavery, as well as to the millions of children of European immigrants. The amendment repealed the Supreme Court’s 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had said that Black people, whether free or enslaved, weren’t U.S. citizens.

“The original Constitution of 1787 is largely silent on . . . who is a citizen,” says Martha S. Jones, a legal historian at Johns Hopkins University. “This principle of birthright really gets its momentum from [19th-century] Black activists.”

Today the U.S. is one of 35 nations that offer unrestricted birthright citizenship (see “Born a Citizen,” below).

Birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the first clause of the 14th Amendment. The amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The 14th Amendment was ratified by Congress in 1868 after the Civil War. The amendment, among other things, granted citizenship to Black Americans after the abolition of slavery, as well as to the millions of children of European immigrants. The amendment repealed the Supreme Court’s 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford. That ruling said that Black people, whether free or enslaved, weren’t U.S. citizens.

“The original Constitution of 1787 is largely silent on . . . who is a citizen,” says Martha S. Jones, a legal historian at Johns Hopkins University. “This principle of birthright really gets its momentum from [19th-century] Black activists.”

Today the U.S. is one of 35 nations that offer unrestricted birthright citizenship (see “Born a Citizen,” below).

Birthright citizenship was tested before the Supreme Court in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to parents who were Chinese citizens. After he traveled to China, U.S. customs officials denied him reentry to the U.S. on the grounds that he wasn’t a citizen. The Supreme Court ruled that his birth on U.S. soil made him a citizen regardless of his parents’ status.

Nearly a century later, in the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas law banning undocumented immigrants from public school was unconstitutional. In the majority opinion, Justice William Brennan wrote that “the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State.”

Birthright citizenship was tested before the Supreme Court in 1898. The case was United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to parents who were Chinese citizens. U.S. customs officials denied him reentry to the U.S. after a trip to China. He was denied on the grounds that he wasn’t a citizen. The Supreme Court ruled that his birth on U.S. soil made him a citizen regardless of his parents’ status.

In the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas law banning undocumented immigrants from public school was unconstitutional. In the majority opinion, Justice William Brennan wrote that “the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State.”

In his executive order, President Trump argues that the 14th Amendment “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”

Eliminating birthright citizenship is part of Trump’s broader attempt to remake the country’s immigration system, which politicians on both sides of the aisle say is broken. These plans, which include mass deportations of undocumented immigrants and restricting entry for refugees, helped propel him back to the presidency. After the surge of migrants at the southern border reached a record high in 2023, immigration was a top issue among voters in the 2024 presidential election.

In his executive order, President Trump argues that the 14th Amendment “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”

Eliminating birthright citizenship is part of Trump’s broader attempt to remake the country’s immigration system. Politicians on both sides of the aisle say this system is broken. Immigration was a top issue among voters in the 2024 presidential election because of the record high surge of migrants at the southern border in 2023.  Trump’s plans for mass deportations of undocumented immigrants and restricting entry for refugees helped get him elected.

Opinions on limiting birthright citizenship fall largely along party lines. It was the consensus opinion among Republican candidates in the 2024 presidential primary, and according to a January Emerson College poll, 69 percent of Republican voters support ending it, compared with 25 percent of Democrats and 38 percent of Independents.

Twenty-two Democratic-led states and several immigrant advocacy organizations have sued the Trump administration to block the executive order, asserting that it’s unconstitutional. They also argue it would harm newborns, who, without the ability to obtain citizenship-affirming documents such as Social Security cards and passports, would be cut off from government services such as public schools and health care.

Opinions on limiting birthright citizenship fall largely along party lines. It was the consensus opinion among Republican candidates in the 2024 presidential primary. According to a January Emerson College poll, 69 percent of Republican voters support ending it, compared with 25 percent of Democrats and 38 percent of Independents.

Twenty-two Democratic-led states and several immigrant advocacy organizations have sued the Trump administration to block the executive order. They assert that it’s unconstitutional. They also argue it would harm newborns who couldn’t obtain citizenship-affirming documents such as Social Security cards and passports. Without such documents, those children would be prevented from receiving government services such as public schools and health care.

“If we were to repeal birthright citizenship, it would create a legal vehicle for intergenerational stigma and discrimination that would undo the very core of this grand American experiment,” says Anthony Romero, executive director of the A.C.L.U., one of the organizations that filed a federal lawsuit.

Eighteen Republican attorneys general filed a legal brief in support of President Trump’s plan.

“For too long, mass numbers of illegal aliens and foreign tourists . . . have been entering our country just to give birth here and hand their kids American citizenship,” says Iowa Republican attorney general Brenna Bird.

“If we were to repeal birthright citizenship, it would create a legal vehicle for intergenerational stigma and discrimination that would undo the very core of this grand American experiment,” says Anthony Romero, executive director of the A.C.L.U., one of the organizations that filed a federal lawsuit.

Eighteen Republican attorneys general filed a legal brief in support of President Trump’s plan.

“For too long, mass numbers of illegal aliens and foreign tourists . . . have been entering our country just to give birth here and hand their kids American citizenship,” says Iowa Republican attorney general Brenna Bird.

Only constitutional amendments, which require passage by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by 38 states, can change the Constitution. Barring that, the Trump administration will have to win in the court system to restrict birthright citizenship. If the Supreme Court were to take up the case, it has the potential to overturn constitutional precedent and interpret the 14th Amendment more narrowly.

“The president has to convince the courts that his interpretation is correct,” says Amanda Frost, a University of Virginia law professor. But she notes that, in recent decades, ending birthright citizenship is “moving into the mainstream discourse” and courts have sometimes been willing to reinterpret the Constitution “when public opinion swings.”

Only constitutional amendments can change the Constitution. (Changes to the Constitution require passage by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by 38 states.) Without a new amendment, the Trump administration will have to win in the court system to restrict birthright citizenship. If the case goes to the Supreme Court, there is potential for the court to overturn constitutional precedent and interpret the 14th Amendment more narrowly.

“The president has to convince the courts that his interpretation is correct,” says Amanda Frost, a University of Virginia law professor. But she notes that, in recent decades, ending birthright citizenship is “moving into the mainstream discourse” and courts have sometimes been willing to reinterpret the Constitution “when public opinion swings.”

With reporting by Michael D. Shear of The New York Times.

With reporting by Michael D. Shear of The New York Times.