• Supreme Court will review Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship.
• The order affects children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporarily present parents.
• Lower courts have blocked the order, declaring it unconstitutional.
• The decision may redefine long-standing interpretations of the 14th Amendment.
• Arguments expected in early 2026, with a ruling anticipated by late June.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case concerning President Trump's controversial executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship, a significant component of his immigration agenda. This case presents the first major assessment of the legal ramifications of the order, which claims to limit citizenship rights for children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or visiting temporarily on visas, according to CBS News and Reuters.

The legal debate centers on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States... are citizens.” Trump's administration argues that this clause does not apply to children of non-citizens. The order faced multiple rejections in lower courts, with decisions citing its unconstitutional nature, as highlighted by a class-action lawsuit filed by various states and immigrant parents, according to BBC and Los Angeles Times.

Trump's legal team asserts that the historical context of the 14th Amendment aimed to guarantee citizenship principally for freed slaves, not children of illegal immigrants or those with temporary visas. They argue that maintaining the status quo incentivizes illegal immigration and creates "birth tourism," a claim rebutted by legal opponents who cite Supreme Court precedent affirming birthright citizenship, such as the 1898 case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, according to HuffPost.

With the Supreme Court now poised to confront the complexities of immigration law and citizenship rights, oral arguments are anticipated in early 2026, with a definitive ruling expected by late June, which could either uphold or dismantle decades of established legal interpretations surrounding birthright citizenship, according to HuffPost and Los Angeles Times.