The Supreme Court has agreed to take up the legality of President Donald Trump’s directive restricting birthright citizenship, stepping into a dispute over how the 14th Amendment has been understood since the 19th century. The order, signed on Trump’s first day of his second term, instructs federal agencies not to recognize citizenship for children born in the United States unless a parent is an American citizen or permanent resident. Lower courts blocked the policy, ruling that it violates both the Constitution and federal law, and the justices are now expected to hear arguments and issue a decision by June.

The administration argues that the amendment’s guarantee of citizenship does not apply to children of immigrants who are in the country illegally or temporarily, warning of issues such as “birth tourism.” Plaintiffs counter that the Supreme Court resolved this question in 1898 in Wong Kim Ark, and that Congress reaffirmed birthright citizenship through legislation in 1940 and again in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. While government lawyers frame the dispute as essential to national security, the directive fits into a wider series of aggressive immigration measures the administration has pursued, many of which have been allowed to proceed by the current Supreme Court despite earlier lower-court objections.

The case lands at a moment when Trump has revived expansive enforcement efforts, widened travel bans, and implemented policies that have led to raids, detentions, and deportations across the country. Critics argue these actions disproportionately target non-citizens without criminal records, while the administration insists they protect Americans. With the Court taking the case before a lower appeals court even reviewed it, the dispute now turns into a national test of presidential power, constitutional interpretation, and the administration’s broader push to reshape who is allowed to belong in the United States.