Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, SUPREME COURT NEWS—High Court to weigh in on birthright citizenship EO, (Dec 8, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside.”

On Friday afternoon, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a brief order list, agreed to hear a challenge to President Trump’s birthright citizenship Executive Order, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of the American Citizenship,” which he issued shortly after taking office. The EO identifies two “categories of individuals born in the United States” to whom “the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend.”

Pursuant to the EO, a child falls within one of the identified categories if, at the time of the child’s birth, their father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States, and their mother was (1) “unlawfully present in the United States,” or (2) lawfully but temporarily present in the United States “(such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa).” The EO directs federal departments and agencies to cease issuing or accepting “documents recognizing United States citizenship” for such individuals born after February 19, 2025.

Trump v. Barbara. The EO was challenged almost immediately with numerous courts blocking its implementation. On December 5, the Court granted certiorari in Trump v. Barbara, a nationwide class action brought by the ACLU and other organizations on behalf of babies who would be subject to the EO. In July, the federal district court in New Hampshire granted a class-wide preliminary injunction against the EO, finding that the class petitioners “demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits of their claims; that Class Petitioners are likely to suffer irreparable harm if the order is not granted; that the potential harm to the class petitioners if the order is not granted outweighs the potential harm to Respondents if the order is granted; and that the issuance of this order is in the public interest.”

ACLU weighs in. Commenting on the Court’s action, Cecillia Wang, ACLU national legal director, stated that “No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship. For over 150 years, it has been the law and our national tradition that everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen from birth. The federal courts have unanimously held that President Trump’s executive order is contrary to the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision from 1898, and a law enacted by Congress. We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”

News: SupremeCourtNews Immigration WhiteHouseNews