admin
President Trump’s Justice Department has taken the bold step of asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow enforcement of his executive order that seeks to end automatic birthright citizenship for children of undocumented and temporary visitors. The filing from the Solicitor General frames the request as a narrowly tailored plea to limit nationwide injunctions that have blocked the policy, but the practical effect would be to let the Administration move forward where courts haven’t specifically enjoined it. This is a fight over who gets to make law in America: the people’s president or activist judges.
The executive order, signed on January 20, 2025, attempts to reinterpret the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment and direct federal agencies to deny U.S. citizenship at birth in certain cases. Federal judges in multiple states have already enjoined the policy as likely unconstitutional, prompting the Administration’s emergency appeal to the high court. Conservatives should not be surprised — Washington’s unelected bench has been quick to block policy that restores borders and sovereign control.
At the heart of the conservative argument is the plain text of the 14th Amendment — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — which many legal scholars argue excludes those here unlawfully or only temporarily. The White House and its lawyers insist their request is modest, aimed at preventing universal injunctions that pause executive action nationwide before courts fully consider the merits. To patriotic Americans, this is less a legal dodge and more a necessary correction to decades of runaway judicial interpretation that has hollowed out sovereignty and incentives for lawful immigration.
Democrats and activist groups have painted the order as draconian and heartless, and they have mobilized state attorneys general and the ACLU to block it in several lawsuits. Lower courts, including panels of the Ninth Circuit and other federal judges, have refused emergency lifts of injunctions, leaving the matter to the Supreme Court’s discretion. The litigation circus only underscores how radical unelected judges can halt a president’s attempt to protect American identity and security when they disagree with the policy.
Make no mistake: the Supreme Court’s decision in this case will shape the future of immigration, national cohesion, and the rule of law. If the Court bows to judicial overreach and denies the president any meaningful path to enforce his order, it will be a victory for open-borders activists and a defeat for citizens who expect a government that defends the nation’s laws and limits. Conversely, a Court willing to restore constitutional balance will vindicate the principle that sovereignty belongs to the people and their elected representatives.
This is about more than technical legalism; it’s about whether America remains a nation defined by law, culture, and allegiance. The long-standing precedent from cases like Wong Kim Ark is often trotted out by opponents, but conservative jurists rightly ask whether that 19th-century doctrine should be read as an open invitation to unregulated immigration. The Supreme Court should take the case, clarify the law, and side with the American people who demand secure borders, enforceable rules, and a government that puts its citizens first.
