May 13, 2026
By Eda Aktas
Staff Writer
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 1 in Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship.
A decision is expected by the end of June or early July, when the court typically releases its most consequential decisions.
Trump issued the order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” on Jan. 20, 2025. In it, he pronounced that people born in the United States are not U.S. citizens if their parents lack sufficient legal status. It applies only to children born after Feb. 20, 2025.
The three representatives in the case are a Honduran asylum seeker whose daughter was born in October 2025, a Taiwanese citizen in the United States on a student visa whose daughter was born in April 2025 and a Brazilian applicant for permanent residence whose son was born in March 2025 and initially received a U.S. passport. They are all challenging Trump’s order, arguing their children’s citizenship is protected under the 14th Amendment.
After the families filed a lawsuit under pseudonyms, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire issued a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking the order and treating the case as a nationwide class-action lawsuit.
“There are so many people who want to come into the United States, and we can’t just let everyone in.”
The Trump administration appealed the district court’s decision, but before the U.S. Court of Appeals could rule, the Supreme Court decided to review the case.
Sophomore Olivia DeRuvo, who is enrolled in Mr. Newman’s Law & Civics elective class, said birthright citizenship is a crucial part of the Constitution.
“It creates a clear and fair rule: if you’re born here, you belong here,” DeRuvo said. “It also prevents discrimination about who deserves to be a citizen.”
DeRuvo said many students struggle to understand the 14th Amendment’s intended purpose.
“It’s often taught quickly or just memorized,” DeRuvo said. “The amendment was originally intended to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people after the Civil War, providing important historical context that can often be overlooked.”
Senior Noah Melendez said Trump’s order highlights the need for immigrants to follow procedures to live in the United States.
“There are so many people who want to come into the United States, and we can’t just let everyone in,” Melendez said. “We have an immigration quota, so there has to be a certain number of people who come and a certain number of people who get rejected. That’s unfortunate, but that’s how the law works, and we have to follow the law.”
Melendez said he agrees with Trump’s intentions in challenging birthright citizenship.
“What the Trump administration is trying to do is to send both [the parents and the children] back together,” Melendez said. “If you’re leaving a child alone in a country that they don’t know anything about, you’re just throwing them in the fire. I don’t think that’s smart or moral at all.”
History teacher Mr. Duus said birthright citizenship is a topic teachers should address in their classrooms.
“I think educators should teach all of the major debates about the Constitution so students are informed about civic values and questions [regarding] their civic responsibilities to participate,” Duus said.
According to a Pew Research Center analysis, just 32 other countries — most in the Western Hemisphere — have birthright citizenship laws similar to those of the United States.
“Birthright citizenship is interesting because it is relatively unusual,” Duus said. “It’s a unique part of the Constitution, and because it interacts with [the] very controversial issue [of immigration], I’m not surprised people line up on opposite sides.”
