Supreme Court Set to Rule on Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Ban and Transgender Athletes in Women's Sports
The US Supreme Court has reached the final day of its current term, and the nation is bracing for two of the most politically charged and highly anticipated rulings of Donald Trump's presidency. On Tuesday, the 6-3 conservative-majority court will deliver its verdicts on an executive order aiming to end automatic birthright citizenship, as well as a nationwide battle over whether states can ban transgender athletes from competing in female sports categories.
The dual blockbusters represent a major test of presidential authority and could fundamentally redefine civil rights and constitutional protections across the United States.
The Battle Over the 14th Amendment
The most closely watched case centers on President Trump's aggressive push to roll back birthright citizenship, the century-and-a-half-old legal tradition, known as jus soli or "right of the soil," which automatically grants citizenship to almost anyone born on American territory.
On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order instructing federal agencies to deny citizenship to newborns unless at least one parent is a US citizen or a lawful permanent resident holding a green card. The administration argues that the current system rewards "birth tourism" and drains taxpayer resources. Trump previously criticized the long-standing policy on social media, writing:
"Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the 'SUCKERS' that we are!"
The legal battle, titled Trump v. Barbara, hinges entirely on a single phrase within the 14th Amendment, which was originally ratified in 1868 to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people. The Constitution states that all persons born in the US and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens.
If the high court sides with the administration, immigration experts estimate that roughly 255,000 infants born each year to noncitizen parents could lose their legal status, with some potentially becoming entirely "stateless." Furthermore, a birth certificate alone would no longer serve as definitive proof of citizenship, creating what advocates call an administrative nightmare requiring every American family to verify their legal ancestry to secure a Social Security number or passport.
During oral arguments in April, which Trump historically attended in person, several justices expressed deep skepticism. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan noted that the White House was attempting to dismantle a tradition rooted in centuries of legal history.
"What the 14th Amendment did was accept that tradition and not attempt to put any limitations on it. That was the clear rationale," Kagan said.
Even some conservative justices pushed back when U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer tried to use an 1898 precedent to support the ban, with Justice Neil Gorsuch cautioning, "Well, I'm not sure how much you want to rely on Wong Kim Ark."
Transgender Bans in School and College Sports
The second case on Tuesday's docket will determine whether individual states have the right to bar transgender female athletes from playing on women's and girls' school and collegiate sports teams.
The high court is reviewing challenges from students in Idaho and West Virginia, two of more than two dozen states that have passed laws mandating that athletes participate according to the biological sex recorded on their birth certificates. Opponents of the restrictions argue they violate constitutional equal protection guarantees and federal civil rights laws, while creating unfair discrimination against transgender youth.
Conversely, proponents of the restrictions argue that individuals who go through male puberty possess permanent biological advantages in sports. This perspective gained significant backing in March when the International Olympic Committee announced stricter limits on the female category. The IOC's specialized working group stated there was a: "clear consensus" that "male sex provides a performance advantage in all sports and events that rely on strength, power and resistance" .
During more than three hours of intense oral arguments in January, the court's conservative supermajority appeared heavily inclined to uphold the state-level bans. A ruling in favor of the restrictions would establish a nationwide precedent regarding how civil rights laws are interpreted for transgender students moving forward.
