Supreme Court Sets April 1 Argument in Birthright Citizenship Case

Argument Date Set for April 1

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument for April 1 in the landmark birthright citizenship case Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Barbara, et al., and the justices are expected to announce the date publicly later this week, according to two clerks familiar with the court's deliberations.

The clerks, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the court's internal scheduling is not public, said the argument will be the only case heard that morning and will be allotted 90 minutes, with 45 minutes for the government and 45 minutes for the respondents. The case, Docket No. 25-365, challenges Executive Order 14160, which directs federal agencies to withhold citizenship documents from children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants and certain temporary visa holders.

A DOJ official with knowledge of the filing schedule said the government's opening brief is due March 2, with the respondents' brief due March 23. The official said Solicitor General D. John Sauer is expected to argue for the government and that the Office of Solicitor General has reserved the full 45 minutes rather than sharing time with any amicus curiae.

The court granted certiorari on Dec. 5, 2025, after the government asked the justices to bypass the First Circuit. The case originated as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, where Judge Joseph Laplante issued a preliminary injunction on July 10, 2025, blocking the executive order from taking effect.

The April 1 argument date places the case squarely in the final month of the Court's argument calendar for the October 2025 term. A ruling is expected before the term ends in early July, the clerks said.

The Constitutional Question

The case presents a direct test of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause and its codification at 8 U.S.C. 1401(a). The government's petition asks whether Executive Order 14160 complies on its face with the clause, which guarantees citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Executive Order 14160, signed Jan. 20, 2025, applies to children born on or after Feb. 19, 2025. It directs the State Department, the Social Security Administration, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to deny passports, Social Security numbers, and other citizenship documents to children whose mothers are unlawfully present or whose parents hold temporary visas such as tourist, student, or work visas.

A lawyer who argued in the lower courts for the respondents said the ACLU and affiliated civil rights organizations will frame the dispute as a settled question of constitutional text and 128 years of precedent. The lawyer, who requested anonymity because of ongoing client relationships, cited United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 decision that established birthright citizenship for nearly all children born on U.S. soil.

"The government is asking the Court to do something it has never done: read a parental-status requirement into the Citizenship Clause," the lawyer said. "Our briefing will show that the text, history, and uninterrupted practice all reject that reading."

The government contends that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes children whose parents lack lawful permanent status. The government's merits brief will rely heavily on Elk v. Wilkins, an 1884 decision that excluded Native Americans owing allegiance to tribal nations from automatic citizenship, according to the DOJ official.

The lawyer who argued the case said the respondents' brief will distinguish Elk by noting that the 1884 decision addressed a discrete political status, not parental immigration classification, and that Congress later extended citizenship to Native Americans through statute.

Stakes and What to Watch

The April 1 argument will mark the first time the Supreme Court has considered the scope of the Citizenship Clause in a direct constitutional challenge since the 1898 Wong Kim Ark ruling. The decision, expected before the term ends in early July, could affect hundreds of thousands of children born each year to noncitizen parents.

The two clerks said the justices have not yet circulated draft opinions and that the April argument calendar remains subject to final adjustment. Both clerks said Chief Justice John Roberts is likely to assign the majority opinion to himself if he is in the majority, given the institutional significance of the case.

Congressional aides tracking the case said lawmakers on the House and Senate Judiciary committees are preparing for the argument by scheduling briefings with constitutional scholars during the week of Feb. 23. A Senate aide said the committee expects to receive a classified assessment from the Congressional Research Service by Feb. 27 on the logistical consequences of a ruling upholding the executive order.

The DOJ official said the administration is preparing implementation guidance for the Social Security Administration, the State Department, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the event the court upholds the order. The official said the guidance would not be issued until after the decision.

State vital records offices are also preparing for the ruling. A lawyer involved in the litigation said plaintiffs have identified at least 18 states where hospital birth-registration systems would require software updates if the executive order is upheld, because those systems currently do not record parental immigration status.

Major news organizations had not confirmed the April 1 argument date as of Monday evening. Watch for a Supreme Court announcement on Feb. 19 or Feb. 20, followed by the government's opening brief on March 2 and potential amicus filings from state attorneys general and immigrant-rights groups in late February.