The United States Supreme Court is preparing to take up two of the most consequential constitutional battles in modern American history, both stemming directly from actions taken by President Donald Trump. The cases — one targeting the very foundation of birthright citizenship, and the other challenging the independence of federal regulatory agencies — have the potential to permanently reshape immigration law, executive power, and the structure of the federal government itself.
The Court announced Friday that it will hear oral arguments early next year on Trump’s January 20 executive order seeking to end automatic birthright citizenship for certain categories of people born on U.S. soil. At the same time, justices are preparing to hear another blockbuster case involving Trump’s effort to remove a sitting Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner — a dispute that could give future presidents unprecedented authority over independent federal agencies.
Together, the two cases place Trump at the center of a legal storm that could redefine who qualifies as an American citizen and how much power the president truly holds over the federal bureaucracy.
Trump’s Order Targets the Core of Birthright Citizenship
Trump’s January 20 executive order seeks to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States if their parents are in the country illegally or on temporary visas. Although the order has not yet taken effect, it immediately sparked a wave of nationwide lawsuits and emergency court rulings.
Under current law and practice, nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil automatically become U.S. citizens, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. That doctrine has stood for more than 150 years and is rooted in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Trump’s order represents the most aggressive attempt in modern history to reinterpret — and potentially overturn — birthright citizenship without a constitutional amendment.
The lawsuits challenging the order argue that Trump is attempting to bypass the Constitution entirely through executive power. According to challengers, the order violates:
-
The clear text of the 14th Amendment
-
More than a century of Supreme Court precedent
-
Longstanding federal immigration and nationality law
Federal Judges Immediately Block Trump’s Move
Almost as soon as the order was signed, federal judges in multiple states stepped in to halt its enforcement.
In Seattle, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the administration from implementing the directive. In Maryland, another federal judge granted an injunction after immigrant-rights groups and several pregnant women filed suit, arguing that the policy would create a class of stateless children.
The plaintiffs warned that Trump’s order could lead to:
-
Children born without any nationality
-
Massive bureaucratic confusion over citizenship status
-
Lifelong legal uncertainty for families
-
A surge of litigation across every U.S. state
Despite those rulings, Trump’s legal team has pushed aggressively to move the case to the Supreme Court — a move that now places the future of birthright citizenship squarely in the hands of the nation’s highest court.
The 14th Amendment at the Center of the Fight
Birthright citizenship became law with the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, in the aftermath of the Civil War. The amendment’s Citizenship Clause 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 clause was specifically designed to overturn the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision in 1857, which ruled that Black Americans could never be U.S. citizens.
For more than a century, the 14th Amendment has been interpreted as guaranteeing citizenship to nearly everyone born on American soil — with very narrow exceptions, such as the children of foreign diplomats.
The Wong Kim Ark Case That Set the Modern Rule
The Supreme Court most directly addressed birthright citizenship in 1898, in the landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
Wong was born in California to Chinese parents who were not U.S. citizens and were barred from naturalization under federal law at the time. After traveling abroad, Wong was denied reentry to the United States on the grounds that he was not a citizen.
In a 6–2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Wong was indeed a U.S. citizen, affirming that the 14th Amendment applies even to children born to non-citizen parents who reside in the United States.
Justice Horace Gray, writing for the majority, declared that the amendment:
“Affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory.”
However, Trump’s legal team now argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children born to illegal immigrants or temporary visa holders — a theory that would dramatically narrow the meaning of the 14th Amendment for the first time in U.S. history.
Roughly 30 Countries Still Practice Birthright Citizenship
Today, only about 30 countries worldwide still grant automatic birthright citizenship. Among them are:
-
The United States
-
Canada
-
Mexico
Most other nations have moved to citizenship systems based primarily on parentage, residency, or legal status.
Trump allies argue that the U.S. should follow the global trend by restricting automatic citizenship. Critics counter that the U.S. system exists precisely because of its unique constitutional history and civil rights struggles.
Trump’s Second Major Supreme Court Case Targets Federal Agency Power
While the birthright citizenship case alone would be historic, it is just one half of the legal earthquake now headed toward the Supreme Court.
A second major case, set for oral argument Monday, centers on Trump’s effort to fire a sitting Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) — and whether presidents have the power to do so without cause.
The case involves Rebecca Slaughter, who was appointed to a seven-year term in 2023. Her term was specifically designed to span multiple administrations to preserve the political independence of the FTC.
Trump attempted to remove Slaughter, arguing that her continued service is “inconsistent with the administration’s priorities.”
Lower federal courts ruled that the dismissal was unlawful.
Why Independent Agencies Exist
For more than a century, independent federal agencies have operated with partial insulation from political pressure. These agencies oversee:
-
Monetary policy
-
Securities regulation
-
Transportation
-
Elections
-
Consumer protection
-
Broadcast licensing
-
Antitrust enforcement
Congress deliberately structured these agencies so that presidents could not fire their leaders at will, requiring “for-cause” justification such as:
-
Inefficiency
-
Neglect of duty
-
Malfeasance in office
These protections were created to prevent agencies from becoming mere political weapons of whichever party holds the White House.
Trump’s Legal Theory Could Shatter That System
Trump’s administration argues that all such limits on presidential removal power are unconstitutional.
The White House contends that:
-
The president is the head of the entire executive branch
-
Every executive officer must ultimately answer directly to the president
-
Congress cannot restrict the president’s authority to dismiss agency leadership
If the Supreme Court sides with Trump, it could mean:
-
The end of independence for agencies like the FTC, SEC, FCC, and Federal Reserve
-
Immediate dismissal power over dozens of regulatory officials
-
Full partisan control of agencies after every presidential election
-
The collapse of bipartisan regulatory continuity
ABC News warned that such a ruling could grant presidents:
“Unfettered power to terminate members of independent agencies at-will.”
A Judicial Collision Course With Massive Consequences
Together, the two Supreme Court cases place Trump at the center of a confrontation over core elements of American governance:
-
Who qualifies as a U.S. citizen
-
Whether the 14th Amendment still has its traditional meaning
-
Whether independent agencies can exist at all
-
Whether Congress can limit presidential power
-
Whether future presidents can reshape the government overnight
Legal scholars across the ideological spectrum agree that the combined impact of these rulings could rival the most transformative Supreme Court decisions of the past century.
Trump’s Supporters Call It a Necessary Power Reset
Trump allies argue that:
-
Birthright citizenship has been abused as an immigration loophole
-
Federal agencies have become unaccountable power centers
-
Congress has overreached in limiting the executive
-
The presidency has been weakened by bureaucratic resistance
They see the Supreme Court battle as an opportunity to:
-
Restore executive authority
-
Tighten immigration enforcement
-
Break entrenched bureaucratic power
Critics Warn of Constitutional Chaos
Opponents argue that Trump’s legal strategy risks:
-
Creating millions of stateless individuals
-
Undermining civil rights protections
-
Politicizing law enforcement agencies
-
Allowing wholesale purges of regulatory bodies after every election
-
Destroying institutional stability
Some constitutional scholars warn that the cases represent the largest expansion of executive power since World War II.
The Timeline Ahead
The Supreme Court will:
-
Hear arguments on the birthright citizenship case early next year
-
Rule on the FTC firing authority later in the current term
-
Likely issue decisions before the end of the Court’s session
Whatever the outcomes, both cases are virtually guaranteed to become cornerstones of American constitutional law for generations.
Final Reality
If Trump prevails in both cases, the United States could emerge with:
-
A radically redefined definition of citizenship
-
A presidency with sweeping control over federal agencies
-
A dramatically weakened Congress
-
A restructured balance of power across Washington
And for the first time in more than 150 years, being born in the United States may no longer guarantee American citizenship.
Emily Johnson is a critically acclaimed essayist and novelist known for her thought-provoking works centered on feminism, women’s rights, and modern relationships. Born and raised in Portland, Oregon, Emily grew up with a deep love of books, often spending her afternoons at her local library. She went on to study literature and gender studies at UCLA, where she became deeply involved in activism and began publishing essays in campus journals. Her debut essay collection, Voices Unbound, struck a chord with readers nationwide for its fearless exploration of gender dynamics, identity, and the challenges faced by women in contemporary society. Emily later transitioned into fiction, writing novels that balance compelling storytelling with social commentary. Her protagonists are often strong, multidimensional women navigating love, ambition, and the struggles of everyday life, making her a favorite among readers who crave authentic, relatable narratives. Critics praise her ability to merge personal intimacy with universal themes. Off the page, Emily is an advocate for women in publishing, leading workshops that encourage young female writers to embrace their voices. She lives in Seattle with her partner and two rescue cats, where she continues to write, teach, and inspire a new generation of storytellers.
