By Randall Yip, Executive Editor

(This story is done in partnership with the URL Collective)

(Update: In light of today’s 6-3 Supreme Court decision paving the way for President Trump to move ahead to block birthright citizenship, but only in 28 states, we are republishing this article originally published May 15, 2025. Today’s decision means his order overturning birthright citizenship is blocked for now in 22 states where the case is being challenged in courts. More reaction as we get it. For now, please read this article published when the case first was heard by the Supreme Court)

Arguably one of the most significant immigration issues to reach the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years will be taken up today.

The justices will hear oral arguments surrounding the issue of birthright citizenship. That’s the right affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898 automatically granting anyone born in the United States U.S. citizenship.

Specifically, they will decide whether federal judges can legally block a presidential executive order as they did with Trump’s decision to overturn birthright citizenship.

The president issued his executive order on the first day in office of his second term. It is highly unusual for a case to reach the country’s highest court so quickly. Trump filed an emergency application to get the case speeded up.

“I think what they are trying to do is to ensure that the executive order is implemented in parts of the United States while the case is actually being litigated throughout the various circuits,” said Razeen Zaman, immigration director with the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund to AsAmNews. “Just to be clear, the Supreme Court is not deciding the actual constitutionality of the executive order on Thursday.”

AALDEF filed a friend of court brief in the case together with the Korematsu Center at UC Irvine Law School and the Center for Civil Rights and Critical Justice at Seattle Law School in support of birthright citizenship. 80 Asian American groups also joined in the brief.

The case could have wide-sweeping implications.

“It probably would be a citizenship stripping order. If you look at what happened in 1923 regarding the case of Bhagat Singh Thind (1923),” said Zaman. But what happened was that after the Supreme Court had decided that he could not be White, therefore he could not be entitled to U.S. citizenship. What happened was that they proceeded to denaturalize around 50 Indian Americans at that point.”

Zaman had said prior to the case that the case would not be retroactive just as the Trump administration has said this time.

Asm. Alex Lee (D-CA) recently introduced a resolution reasserting California’s commitment to supporting the right to citizenship by birth that the court has previously ruled is enshrined in the 14th amendment.

“Birthright citizenship is a pillar of the U.S. Constitution,” said Assemblymember Lee who himself is a birthright citizen.

He estimates 25,000 children born in California and 150,000 nationwide would be denied citizenship if birthright citizenship is overturned.

Trump has argued that the 14th amendment is misunderstood. He asserts it only applies to slavery.

Others who oppose birthright citizenship agree including John Eastman of the Claremont Institute agree.

“There are a lot of people in the country waiting for resolution of this issue,” said Eastman in a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.  “Is the executive order valid or not? And the longer we wait, the more consternation it’s caused.”

“What the Trump administration is asking for is radical,” said Zaman. “They want the court to go back 157 years. He didn’t go through Congress. He just decided that he could overturn 157 just by signing an executive order. That is not how the law works.”

Protesters are outside the U.S. Supreme Court this morning while the case is being heard. AsAmNews has a reporter there and will bring you the very latest.

(An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the Asm. Alex Lee introduced his resolution on Wednesday).

Related