As the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week about the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed skeptical.

The order as written applies only to babies born in the future, and the Trump administration has asked the court to exclude current citizens from any decision. Still, the court’s senior liberal justice wasn’t so sure it would work out like that.

“But the logic of your position, if accepted, is that this president or the next president or Congress or someone else could decide that it shouldn’t be prospective,” Sotomayor told U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the government’s top advocate at the court. “There would be nothing limiting that, according to your theory.”

The birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, is forcing the Supreme Court to confront the prospect of the United States becoming a much different kind of nation — one where Americans risk losing their citizenship and babies could be born effectively stateless. It’s also a nation that would more closely resemble its past, when broad swaths of people were excluded from the coveted title of American.

A majority of the court, including several conservative justices, appeared unpersuaded by the Trump administration’s argument that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified during Reconstruction, doesn’t guarantee citizenship to nearly everyone born on American soil. The court may very well strike down the order, which has never taken effect, later this year.

But whatever the decision, the case has prompted a high-stakes debate over who is an American — and the consequences of that definition — that’s playing out in the courtroom, in court documents and on the steps of the Supreme Court.

“Birthright citizenship is not just a legal principle,” Norman Wong said at a demonstration outside the Supreme Court last week.

Wong is a grandchild of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco but denied entry back into the country after visiting China more than a century ago. Officials at the time argued he wasn’t a citizen, but he took his case to the Supreme Court and, in a 1898 decision, the justices affirmed that virtually all children born in the United States were guaranteed citizenship.

“It’s a statement about who we are as a nation,” Wong said of birthright citizenship. “It affirms that America is not defined by bloodlines or exclusion, but shared values and equal rights.”

A different view

Trump and some Republicans view birthright citizenship differently. 

The 14th Amendment says “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 Trump administration, which has worked to carry out mass deportations, contends that children born to parents in the country illegally or temporarily are not subject to the country’s jurisdiction. Most historians and legal scholars repudiate that position.

The executive order, signed on Trump’s first day back in office, calls citizenship a privilege — not a right — that’s a “priceless and profound gift.” 

During a recent Oval Office event, Trump told reporters that birthright citizenship was intended to extend citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their children following the Civil War. 

“The reason was it had to do with the babies of slaves,” Trump said.

Some Republicans have embraced a conception of the U.S. as a nation bound by a distinct cultural heritage — sometimes in language that celebrates European settlers — as opposed to a people brought together by the idea of America or a set of common principles. Like Trump, they advocate for a restrictive approach to immigration.

At a conference last fall on national conservatism — the name sometimes given to this perspective — U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt, a Missouri Republican, called America a “a way of life that is ours, and only ours, and if we disappear, then America, too, will cease to exist.”

Schmitt filed a brief with the Supreme Court in January, along with Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, in support of the executive order. 

“The Citizenship Clause applies only to those who have been allowed to adopt our country as their permanent and lawful home,” the brief says.

Revoking citizenship?

At the Supreme Court last week, Sotomayor pressed Sauer on a 1923 Supreme Court decision, U.S. vs. Thind. In that case, the justices ruled that a Sikh man from India, Bhagat Singh Thind, wasn’t eligible for citizenship. 

Thind argued that he was a “free white person,” a category of person allowed to naturalize under federal law at the time. The court found that Thind didn’t meet that definition under the common understanding of the phrase. The federal government revoked the citizenship of dozens of South Asian Americans following the decision.

Sauer reiterated that the Trump administration was only asking for “prospective relief,” prompting Sotomayor to interject.

“No, what I’m saying to you (is), yeah, that’s what you’re asking for relief right now,” Sotomayor said. “I’m asking whether the logic of your theory would permit what happened after the court’s decision in Thind, that the government could move to unnaturalize people who were born here of illegal residents.”

Sauer responded no, before concluding that “we are not asking for any retroactive relief.”

The exchange spotlighted the scenario that many advocates for immigrants fear if the Supreme Court strips away birthright citizenship. 

In a court brief, the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, which uses litigation to advance racial justice, and more than 70 other nonprofit groups warned that upholding the order would invite efforts to revoke the citizenship of countless Americans.

While the order is styled as only forward-looking, the groups said it threatens much deeper harms. To uphold Trump’s order, the Supreme Court would need to conclude that birth on U.S. soil doesn’t guarantee citizenship. Once that happens, they argue, “it is all too easy” to imagine the government retroactively removing citizenship.

“In that scenario, without further intervention from Congress, the affected individuals would become undocumented, with many or most becoming stateless,” the brief says.

American Civil Liberties Union national legal director Cecillia Wang, arguing against the order at the Supreme Court, said the 14th Amendment has provided a “fixed, bright-line rule” on citizenship that has contributed to the growth and thriving of the nation. 

She cautioned that the order would render whole swaths of American laws senseless.

“Thousands of American babies will immediately lose their citizenship,” Wang said. “And if you credit the government’s theory, the citizenship of millions of Americans — past, present and future — could be called into question.”

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report. 

President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order on Tuesday that attempts to restrict mail-in voting, a White House priority certain to face significant legal challenges.

The order directs the U.S. Department of Homeland Security along with the Social Security Administration to compile a list of voting-age American citizens in each state and share it with state election officials. The order also requires the U.S. Postal Service to only send and receive ballots that include tracking barcodes.

Trump’s order represents a major escalation in his effort to assert presidential control over elections, which under the U.S. Constitution are administered by the states. Trump last year attempted to unilaterally impose a proof of citizenship requirement to vote in federal elections in an executive order that was blocked in federal court.

The move also reflects a long-held focus by Trump and his allies on noncitizen voters. Studies have shown noncitizen voting is extremely rare.

“I think this will help a lot with elections,” Trump said.

National database of adult citizens

Homeland Security operates the SAVE system, a powerful computer program that can verify citizenship. 

DHS has previously invited states to run their voter rolls through SAVE, which flags voters as potential noncitizens. Some election officials criticize the system, saying it wrongly identifies U.S. citizens as possibly ineligible.

The U.S. Department of Justice as recently as last week denied any efforts to create a national voter registration list. While the executive order does not explicitly mandate the creation of a voter list, it essentially marks an effort by the White House to create a national database of adult U.S. citizens.

The order requires Homeland Security to enable states to routinely supplement or suggest changes to each state’s citizenship list. Federal officials would also be required to allow individuals to access their own records and update or correct them ahead of elections.

Under the executive order, the postmaster general must propose rules to require all outbound ballot mail to be sent in an envelope that includes a barcode for tracking. The order also requires that states must inform the U.S. Postal Service at least 90 days before federal elections whether they intend to allow ballots to be sent through the mail.

“Instead of focusing on lowering the cost of energy, groceries, and health care, Donald Trump is desperately attempting to take over and rig our elections and avoid accountability in November,” U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, said in a statement shortly after Trump announced the order. “This executive order is a blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power.”

SAVE America Act

Trump has pushed Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require individuals to produce documents, such as a passport or birth certificate, proving their citizenship in order to register to vote. The U.S. Senate is debating the bill, but it appears unlikely to have enough support to overcome a filibuster.

Trump has repeatedly asked Republicans to add three provisions to the bill, including restrictions on mail-in voting, with exceptions for members of the military, people who are ill and those on vacation. 

The president has also previously promised to advance voting restrictions, with or without Congress. Earlier this month, Trump voted by mail in Florida.

The executive order directs the Justice Department and other federal agencies to withhold federal funds from non-compliant states and localities “where such withholding is authorized by law.” 

Tuesday’s order is certain to face legal challenges. The Constitution gives Congress — not the president by executive order — the power to override state election regulations.

Marc Elias, a prominent voting rights litigator, promised to fight the executive order.

“If Trump signs an unconstitutional Executive Order to take over voting, we will sue,” Elias wrote on social media. “I don’t bluff and I usually win.”

Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters praised the order, saying Trump was restoring voter confidence. “Protecting America’s ballot box isn’t optional – it’s the foundation of our republic,” Grunters said.

DOJ lawsuits against states

The Justice Department has sued 29 states and the District of Columbia for copies of their voter rolls that contain sensitive personal information on voters, such as driver’s licenses and partial Social Security numbers. About a dozen states have voluntarily provided the data, but most are fighting the demands in court.

Three federal judges have so far ruled against the Justice Department. The administration is appealing and in court documents has argued that swift court decisions are necessary to ensure the security and fairness of the midterms.

The Trump administration has said the data is necessary to verify only citizens are registered to vote. Last week, a Justice Department lawyer confirmed in court that voter data would be shared with Homeland Security.

“Some may freak out about this, but honestly, this is hilarious,” David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research and a former U.S. Department of Justice Voting Section attorney, wrote on social media about the Trump order. 

“It’s clearly unconstitutional, will be blocked immediately, and the only thing it will accomplish is to make liberal lawyers wealthier. He might as well sign an EO banning gravity.”

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled Tuesday that President Donald Trump overstepped his authority when he signed an executive order last year that blocked funding from going to the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. 

U.S. District Judge Randolph Daniel Moss wrote in a 62-page order that while many of the original issues in the case are no longer relevant after Congress rescinded funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the section of the executive order that called on agencies to end “any direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS” remains applicable. 

“The message is clear: NPR and PBS need not apply for any federal benefit because the President disapproves of their ‘left-wing’ coverage of the news,” Moss wrote. 

“Because the First Amendment does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination and retaliation of this type, the Court will issue judgment against the federal agency defendants declaring Section 3(a) of the Executive Order is unconstitutional and will issue an injunction barring those defendants from implementing it.”

Moss was nominated to the district court for the District of Columbia by former President Barack Obama in 2014. 

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson implied in a statement that the administration will appeal the court’s decision. 

“This is a ridiculous ruling by an activist judge attempting to undermine the law. NPR and PBS have no right to receive taxpayer funds, and Congress already voted to defund them,” Jackson wrote. “The Trump Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue.”

A PBS spokesperson wrote in a statement the organization is “thrilled with today’s decision declaring the executive order unconstitutional.”  

“As we argued, and Judge Moss ruled, the executive order is textbook unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation, in violation of longstanding First Amendment principles,” the spokesperson added. “At PBS, we will continue to do what we’ve always done: serve our mission to educate and inspire all Americans as the nation’s most trusted media institution.” 

A spokesperson for NPR did not return a request for comment.

No effect on congressional defunding

Trump issued the executive order titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media” in May of last year, leading to two separate lawsuits that were later joined together. 

One was filed by NPR along with three Colorado stations: Aspen Public Radio, Colorado Public Radio and KSUT Public Radio. The second lawsuit was filed by PBS and Lakeland PBS in Minnesota. 

The NPR lawsuit alleged Trump’s executive order had an “overt retaliatory purpose” and “is unlawful in multiple ways.”

“The Order is textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, and it interferes with NPR’s and the Local Member Stations’ freedom of expressive association and editorial discretion,” the lawsuit stated. “Lastly, by seeking to deny NPR critical funding with no notice or meaningful process, the Order violates the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.”

The lawsuits were filed before the Trump administration in June asked Congress to eliminate $1.1 billion in previously approved funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provided grants to NPR and PBS. 

The Senate voted 51-48 in July to approve the request and the House approved that version of the rescissions bill on a 216-213 vote shortly afterward.

Viewpoint discrimination

Moss wrote in his ruling that the original parts of the lawsuit addressing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting were no longer relevant since “CPB no longer exists, and no Court order declaring the Executive Order unlawful as applied to the CPB can afford NPR, PBS, or their member stations any meaningful relief.”

“But that does not end the matter because the Executive Order sweeps beyond the CPB,” he added. “It also directs that all federal agencies refrain from funding NPR and PBS—regardless of the nature of the program or the merits of their applications or requests for funding.”

Moss wrote that while Trump can denounce news organizations as much as he wants, he cannot order government officials to engage in viewpoint discrimination. 

“To be sure, the President is entitled to criticize this or any other reporting, and he can express his own views as he sees fit,” he wrote. “He may not, however, use his governmental power to direct federal agencies to exclude Plaintiffs from receiving federal grants or other funding in retaliation for saying things that he does not like.”

The Trump administration’s attempt to block grants from the Department of Education, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Endowment for the Arts and other agencies from going to PBS and NPR would have widespread impacts, Moss wrote. 

“It does so, moreover, without regard to whether the federal funds are used to pay for the nationwide interconnection systems, which serve as the technological backbones of public radio and television; to provide safety and security for journalists working in war zones; to support the emergency broadcast system; or to produce or distribute music, children’s or other educational programming, or documentaries,” he wrote. 

Trump administration lawyers, Moss wrote, were unable to “explain why NPR’s purportedly ‘biased’ political reporting means that its production and distribution of programming like ‘Tiny Desk Concerts,’ … runs afoul of the NEA’s authorizing statute.”

WASHINGTON — In a notable break from President Donald Trump’s signature trade policy, several House Republicans joined Democrats in passing a resolution to terminate the president’s national emergency at the northern border that triggered tariffs on Canada just over one year ago.

The measure, passed 219-211, revokes Trump’s Feb. 1, 2025, executive order imposing tariffs on Canada, which he triggered under an unprecedented use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. 

Whether he has the power to invoke tariffs under the 1970s law is under review at the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments in November. An opinion, still not released, has been expected for months.

Reps. Don Bacon, R-Neb., Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., Jeff Hurd, R-Colo., Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., broke ranks with the GOP to join Democrats in rebuffing Trump’s levies on Canadian goods.

Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, was the only Democrat to vote against the resolution. 

Two Republicans, Greg Murphy of North Carolina and Riley Moore of West Virginia, did not vote.

The House vote occurred less than 24 hours after three House Republicans delivered a rebuke to Trump and joined Democrats in blocking House leadership’s effort to extend a ban on bringing any resolutions to the floor that disapprove of the administration’s tariffs.

Trump’s centerpiece economic policy has drawn criticism over its on-again, off-again changes, causing uncertainty for business and costs passed along to consumers.

The vote also comes just days after Trump threatened to close a new bridge between Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit, Michigan, if Canada does not negotiate a new trade deal with the United States. 

In a nearly 300-word post Monday on his platform Truth Social, Trump predicted that if Canada struck a deal with China, the eastern power would “terminate ALL ice Hockey being played in Canada, and permanently eliminate The Stanley Cup.”

‘Canada is our friend’

Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the resolution’s lead sponsor, criticized Trump’s “manufactured emergency” regarding Canada.

“Canada isn’t a threat. Canada is our friend. Canada is our ally. Canadians have fought alongside Americans, whether it was in World War II or the war in Afghanistan,” Meeks said. 

Meeks also said tariffs are costing his constituents up to $1,700 per year. 

“That’s what this is about. It’s about American people and making things affordable for them,” Meeks said on the floor ahead of the vote.

Analyses from the Tax Foundation and Yale Budget Lab pin the average cost per household between roughly $1,300 and $1,750 from all current tariffs combined — not just import taxes on products purchased from Canada.

Fentanyl debate

Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., disagreed, arguing the cost amounted not to lost income but to drug overdose deaths attributed to illicit fentanyl.

“Who will pay the price? It’s a very sad thing to have (been) asked by this colleague of mine … because it’s important to remember, what is this resolution? This resolution ends an emergency related to fentanyl,” Mast said during pre-vote debate. 

But U.S. Customs and Border Protection data from fiscal year 2023 to the present shows fentanyl seizures at the northern border dwarfed by the amount intercepted at the southwest border.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement  Agency identifies China as the beginning of the illicit fentanyl supply chain that moves through clandestine labs in Mexico and then into the United States.

Trump’s Feb. 1, 2025 executive order conceded that Border Patrol agents seized “much less fentanyl from Canada than from Mexico last year,” but claimed the amount seized at the northern border in 2024 was still enough to kill 9.5 million people.

The synthetic opioid “is so potent that even a very small parcel of the drug can cause many deaths and destruction to America(n) families,” according to the executive order.

Senate action so far

A handful of Republican senators have also rebuked at least one category of Trump’s emergency tariffs.

In late October, Sens. Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul of Kentucky, along with Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, Maine’s Susan Collins and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, supported a joint resolution in a 52-48 vote to terminate Trump’s 50% tariffs on Brazilian products, including coffee.

The president declared a national emergency and imposed the steep tariff on Brazilian goods on July 30 after accusing Brazil’s government of “politically persecuting” its former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro for plotting a coup to remain in power in 2022. 

The Senate vote marked a shift from two earlier efforts in April to stymie Trump’s tariffs, including a measure to terminate the president’s levies on Canadian imports.