Lead counsel urges court to protect 128 years of birthright citizenship as Supreme Court hears challenge

Key Takeaways

• Cody Wofsy, who says he is lead counsel, is preparing with the ACLU to argue against an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship. It has been reported that President Trump issued the order.
• The case turns on the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause and long-standing Supreme Court precedent, notably the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
• If the court allowed the executive branch to override the clause, millions of U.S.-born children — except those explicitly excluded like diplomats’ children — could lose clear, automatic citizenship.
• For now, no administrative change should affect births; immigration professionals advise continuing ordinary practices and seeking counsel for affected families.

What happened

In an opinion piece in the Guardian, Cody Wofsy — who says he is lead counsel in the legal challenge — describes preparing with ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang for arguments before the US Supreme Court this week. The litigation contests an executive order that, it has been reported, seeks to end the longstanding rule that anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen. The case raises straightforward factual claims and deep constitutional questions about the scope of executive power and the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Legal history and arguments

The dispute centers on the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, which guarantees that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” That language was adopted after the Civil War to overturn the Dred Scott decision, which had denied citizenship to Black people born in the United States. The Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed birthright citizenship for the children of non-citizen parents born here. Wofsy and his team will rely on text, history and precedent to argue that the executive branch cannot unilaterally rewrite the constitutional guarantee; the government’s competing theory has been presented as an exception for noncitizen parents, apart from narrow categories such as children of foreign diplomats.

Human impact and what this means now

Were the court to endorse the administration’s claim, the practical consequences would be profound: newborns today could be treated differently depending on shifting interpretations of the Constitution, and families face legal and social uncertainty. The likely immediate effect for people going through the immigration process is continued uncertainty rather than immediate administrative change — USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) and other agencies have no basis to stop issuing birth certificates, passports or other routine documentation while litigation proceeds. Immigration attorneys say affected families should document births carefully, consult counsel, and follow official guidance. The Supreme Court’s decision will shape not only legal doctrine but the lived reality of children and parents across the country for generations.

Source: Original Article