The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 30 scheduled oral argument on whether President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship is constitutional.

The argument in Trump v. Barbara has been set for April 1, the court announced.

The justices granted the petition in the case on Dec. 5, 2025.

Trump’s Executive Order 14160 has prompted debate over the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which states: “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 order, signed on Jan. 20, 2025, states that “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”

According to the order, an individual born in the United States is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” if that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the country and the individual’s father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the person’s birth.

It also states that the privilege of U.S. citizenship does not apply to an individual whose mother’s presence was lawful but temporary and whose father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of that individual’s birth.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups brought the lawsuit on behalf of young children who might be subject to the executive order.

On July 10, 2025, a federal district court granted an injunction temporarily blocking the executive order. The court also provisionally certified the plaintiffs in the lawsuit as members of a class.

A class action lawsuit is filed when a group of plaintiffs suffers common injuries as a result of a defendant’s alleged conduct. At least one individual or entity acts as a representative of the group.

For the lawsuit to proceed, a court first needs to decide if the various allegedly injured parties have enough in common to be certified as a class.

The lead respondent, identified simply as Barbara, is a citizen of Honduras who lives in New Hampshire with her husband and three young children.

She has lived in the United States since 2024 and has an asylum application pending. Her husband, who is the father of her children, is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident.

Barbara expects to apply on her family’s behalf for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and other benefits that citizens are eligible for, the district court said, according to the petition.

The district court granted provisional class certification to the individuals to whom the executive order denies citizenship, but not their parents, the petition said.

The federal government appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Sept. 5, 2025. The circuit court had not yet ruled on the case when the government filed its petition with the Supreme Court on Sept. 26, 2025.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in the petition that the executive order restores the original meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause when it was adopted after the Civil War.

The clause was adopted “to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children—not to those of temporary visitors or illegal aliens,” he said.

Sauer said automatic citizenship “operates as a powerful incentive for illegal migration,” presents national security concerns, and “has spawned an industry of modern ‘birth tourism,’ by which foreigners travel to the United States solely for the purpose of giving birth here and obtaining citizenship for their children.”

The ACLU said in a brief that the Supreme Court has long upheld citizenship at birth for all individuals born in the United States, with a handful of exceptions that are not relevant to this case.

The executive order, which would strip citizenship from individuals born in the United States whose parents lack permanent immigration status, “is squarely contrary to the constitutional text, this court’s precedents, Congress’s dictates, longstanding Executive Branch practice, scholarly consensus, and well over a century of our nation’s everyday practice,” the brief said.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case by the end of June.

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared Jan. 30, 2026, in The Epoch Times.