SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
birthright citizenship
The Supreme Court's Pro-Trump Immigration Rulings Threaten Decades of Progress
The sitting members should consider what kind of legacy they wish to leave for future generations before siding blindly with our most autocratic president in history.
Feb 18, 2026
The justices on the Supreme Court should not favor the president who appointed them because checks and balances demand that they uphold the law without passion or prejudice. The current Supreme Court has increasingly shown a pattern of siding with the Trump administration—a result made predictable by the court’s conservative majority. Immigration cases have, with rare exception, aligned along these partisan lines.
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court sidestepped the question of birthright citizenship and overruled lower court decisions that sought to protect it. The original plaintiffs filed suit to enjoin the enforcement of the executive order that identifies circumstances in which a person born in the United States is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” thereby restricting the constitutionally guaranteed bestowal of birthright citizenship. The Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court, which granted review. The plaintiffs argued that the executive order violates the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, as well as sections 1 and 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940—the constitutional guarantee that birth on US soil confers citizenship.
Before the case reached the Supreme Court, the district court entered universal injunctions barring the application of the executive order to anyone, thereby preserving birthright citizenship, and the appellate court denied the government’s request to postpone the granted relief. In its application to the Supreme Court, the government argued that federal courts lacked equitable authority to issue universal injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789, attacking the district court’s authority in order to preserve the president’s propensity to overstep his. The Supreme Court granted the government's application and held that Congress has not granted federal courts authority to universally enjoin the enforcement of an executive order. Reaching all the way back to pre-Revolution English law and the Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court reasoned that no such authority exists. Their reasoning reads as petulant and arbitrary, an invocation of ancient doctrine to narrow modern rights.
On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court granted an application for stay by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The decision states that the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes immigration officers to interrogate any alien (or person believed to be an alien) as to “his right to be or to remain in the United States.” They also found that they may briefly detain individuals if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that he or she is an alien illegally present in the United States, based on the “totality of the particular circumstances.”
The Supreme Court’s deep bias in favor of Trump administration policies gestures toward a reversal, through immigration cases, of the trenchant progress in civil rights litigation that the Warren Court and subsequent courts have made.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law, however, takes tremendous liberties with the letter of these laws, essentially recognizing ethnicity as a basis for reasonable suspicion. Specifically, the California District Court enjoined immigration officers from making investigative stops based on, among other factors, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, and race or ethnicity. In a nutshell, the lower court forbade immigration enforcement from racially profiling Latine Angelenos. The Supreme Court overruled the lower court, reasoning that, while ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion, it can be a relevant factor when considered along with other salient factors. This argument is internally incoherent and contradictory, suggesting that racial bias is at once insufficient and persuasive evidence. Citing the myriad “significant economic and social problems” caused by “illegal” immigration, the Supreme Court sided with DHS, finding that the government would suffer irreparable injury from the injunction. The relevance of socioeconomic problems to the question of racial profiling and potential excessive force in the execution thereof is tenuous at best.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. She argued that “we should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job,“ as it would be a loss to our constitutional freedom.
On December 23, 2025, however, the Supreme Court issued an noticeably restrained opinion upholding a lower court’s temporary restraining order (TRO), which barred the deployment of the National Guard in Illinois. The court found that, under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military is prohibited from executing the laws, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress. The decision further stated that, before the president can federalize the guard under 10 USC §12406(3), he must have statutory or constitutional authority to execute the laws with the regular military and must be unable with those forces to perform that function.
The Supreme Court’s deep bias in favor of Trump administration policies gestures toward a reversal, through immigration cases, of the trenchant progress in civil rights litigation that the Warren Court and subsequent courts have made. The sitting members should consider what kind of legacy they wish to leave for future generations before siding blindly with our most autocratic president in history. Political expediency may be convenient in the short term, but history will judge harshly those who twisted our most sacred liberties to the advantage of an advantageous few, rather than standing with the people our Constitution was written to protect.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dreamers, Birthright, and Belonging: What Does It Mean To Be An American?
You could have been born here, gone to school here, worked here, served in this country’s military, followed the laws, learned the language and history, and yet still not be American enough to belong.
Dec 14, 2025
On December 4, Senators Dick Durbin and Lisa Murkowski reintroduced the bipartisan Dream Act to Congress—24 years after it was first introduced. If passed, it would create a pathway for citizenship for people who were brought to the US as children and meet certain requirements.
The Dream Act, whether now or in 2001, is a commonsense measure. Even if one believes that undocumented immigrants have committed a crime, their children are innocent. To meet the eligibility requirements, they must have proficiency in English; be knowledgeable of US history; not have committed any serious crimes; and have either served in the military, worked, or gained an education. These are not the “illegal alien gang members” that President Donald Trump insists must be deported.
Trump himself acknowledges this. In a 2024 interview with Kristen Welker, he said, “In many cases, they become successful. They have great jobs. In some cases, they have small businesses, some cases they might have large businesses. And we’re going to have to do something with them.” When Welker asked him to clarify whether he wants “them to be able to stay,” he replied, “I do.”
Unfortunately, that doesn't matter. The Dream Act will fail again. Trump’s Department of Homeland Security has already tried to strip 525,000 DACA recipients of their benefits this year. DHS Assistant Press Secretary Tricia McLaughlin has even urged recipients to self-deport, noting that they “are not automatically protected from deportations.”
What it means to be an American is not something Trump gets to decide.
In fact, Trump is one Supreme Court decision away from creating a new class of Dreamer.
On December 5, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship. His executive order would deny citizenship to children born in the US of undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas.
Those children, despite being born here, will effectively become neo-Dreamers. Another group of people whom the US government would be failing to recognize and protect. The major difference between Dreamers and these neo-Dreamers would be the basis of their belonging—the reason why, despite everything, they are Americans.
The Dreamers are American by virtue of having lived and built a life here. Their identity, values, and communities are tied to the US. As Marie Gonzalez-Deel explains, “No matter what, I will always consider the United States of America my home. I love this country. Only in America would a person like me have the opportunity to tell my story to people like you. Many may argue that because I have a Costa Rican birth certificate, I am Costa Rican and should be sent back to that country. If I am sent back there, sure I'd be with my Mom and Dad, but I'd be torn away from loved ones that are my family here, and from everything I have known since I was a child.” The Dreamers are American by action and deed.
For the neo-Dreamers, the justification would rest largely on the legality and constitutionality of their birthright claim. The neo-Dreamers would be American by right.
The Dreamers and neo-Dreamers represent two different ways of conceptualizing what it means to be an American. Yet, for the Trump administration, neither is sufficient. You could have been born here, gone to school here, worked here, served in this country’s military, followed the laws, learned the language and history, and yet still not be an American. But then, who is?
Trump claims that he’s “America First.” But who exactly is he putting first? Whether it's defunding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, letting Obamacare subsidies expire, limiting states’ ability to regulate artificial intelligence, conducting military-style raids in American cities, rolling back Environmental Protection Agency air quality protections, recommending controversial vaccine schedules, imposing tariffs that raise prices for everyone, eliminating the SAVE student loan repayment plan, or dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, his policies overwhelmingly harm US citizens and immigrants alike.
In Trump’s America, only the Trump family and the ultra wealthy benefit. So perhaps instead of focusing on him, we should start thinking about what we, as Americans, think about who we are and what we represent. I’ll start: To me, Americans have contributed to the US and allowed the US to shape their lives and sense of self. By contributing, I don’t simply mean in the economic sense. Cultural and interpersonal contributions are just as if not more significant. We are more than laborers. The value we add to our communities cannot be reduced to GDP or market value.
By shaping their lives and sense of self, I don’t simply mean assimilation or acculturation. Being with others is always a two-way street. Each of us enriches the lives of others, and our lives are enriched in turn. We grow together.
A community, at its core, is a collective achievement. Citizens and immigrants, in many diverse ways, work together to maintain and nourish that achievement. We build together. Whatever problems we face, we solve them together. And yes, sometimes, we stumble and lose our way together. Progress is not a straight line. But we must never lose sight of who we are and what we represent.
What it means to be an American is not something Trump gets to decide. It’s our country, we decide.
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Must Protect Birthright Citizenship From Trump’s Xenophobic, Eugenic Ideology
If the Supreme Court rules in his favor, it could pave the way for any president (or wannabe-monarch) to redefine citizenship at their discretion.
Dec 09, 2025
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order to restrict the right to birthright citizenship. If the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor, then children born in the US would be denied citizenship if their parents are undocumented or residing in the country under temporary legal status.
Let’s not mince words here: Trump’s executive order is cruel and xenophobic. Children born of undocumented immigrants or visa holders have committed no crimes. They are not responsible for the circumstances of their birth. There is also no legitimate legal basis. The 14th Amendment is clear: “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.”
None of these facts matter to Trump. His administration would readily tear families apart and see children born into a second-class status simply because their births were not to his liking.
This is only the beginning of the cruelty that his birthright ban would unleash. If the Supreme Court rules in his favor, it would pave the way for any president (or wannabe monarch) to redefine citizenship at their discretion. After all, if simply being born in the US is not enough to guarantee citizenship, then what is? Where do we draw the line?
Trump cannot be allowed to define who is a citizen.
Well, if you’re Trump, then it’s the color line. For the Trump administration, not all babies are created equal. Restricting birthright citizenship is their way of preventing “hundreds of thousands of unqualified people” from acquiring the “privilege of American citizenship.” It is about dissuading the wrong kinds of people from having the wrong kinds of babies.
Sound far-fetched? Well, consider this: Trump, the self-proclaimed “fertilization president” (gross!), has sought to expand access to in vitro fertilization (IVF). As Trump puts it, we want “beautiful babies in this country, we want you to have your beautiful, beautiful, perfect baby. We want those babies, and we need them.”
Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, champions the future of “Trump babies.” Vice President JD Vance literally says he wants “more babies in the United States of America.” The Trump White House insists that they need “growing numbers of strong, traditional families that raise healthy children.”
But, if that’s true, then what is the purpose of Trump’s executive order? If they want more babies to be born in this country, then why push to deny babies their legitimate birthright? It’s because Trump is pro-baby so long as it’s the right kind of baby.
Beautiful, healthy, strong and perfect—those are the babies Trump wants. And those are the babies that, in his view, migrants do not have.
Trump has explicitly said that migrants have “bad genes” that cause them to commit crimes. That they are “not humans, they’re animals.” He has said that migrants from South America, Africa, and Asia are “poisoning the blood of our country”—a view that parallels Hitler’s own rhetoric about “blood poisoning” and race mixing. He calls Somalis “garbage” and says that “I don’t want them in our country, I’ll be honest with you… their country is no good for a reason.” He believes this about migrants, and he believes it extends to their children. This pseudoscientific eugenic drivel is at the core of his executive order.
That is the real danger of Trump’s birthright ban. As it stands, birthright citizenship provides a clear-cut metric. Aside from two niche exceptions, if you were born here, you are from here. There’s no loophole to exploit. There’s no definition to reevaluate and abuse. There’s no place for prejudice, discrimination, or bigoted understandings of what it means to be an American. There’s no ambiguity regarding who belongs. The simplicity of birthright is precisely its strength.
It’s also precisely why the Trump administration wants to undo it. Birthright citizenship is a strong barrier against the administration’s most fascist impulses to recreate “the meaning and value of American citizenship.” As he said on the campaign trail, “If I win, the American people will be the rulers of this country again. The United States is now an occupied country.” His current administration similarly claims that Europe faces “civilizational erasure” if it does not restrict migration and preserve its “Western identity.”
If Trump’s mission is, as he explicitly says, to liberate the US and protect Western values threatened by migration, then he won’t stop with the children of undocumented immigrants. Trump cannot be allowed to define who is a citizen. For the good of the nation and for future generations, we cannot let him succeed.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular