Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill and the recent Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship in the United States.
The approval of H.R. 1, known as the “Big Beautiful Bill,” in July 2025, along with the decision of the United States Supreme Court on June 27 regarding birthright citizenship, has reignited the debate on the requirements to acquire U.S. citizenship.
This comprehensive legislative package, driven by President Donald Trump, addresses issues such as immigration, taxes, energy, and social programs, with significant implications for the principle of jus soli (right of the soil), which grants automatic citizenship to those born on U.S. territory.
Although the high court’s decision does not directly address the constitutionality of the changes regarding citizenship, it has modified the legal framework by limiting the judiciary’s ability to block these policies nationwide.
The Big Beautiful Bill and its immigration provisions
The bill allocates $170 billion to strengthen the enforcement of immigration laws, including the hiring of 10,000 new ICE agents, 5,000 Border Patrol officers, and the expansion of detention centers.
One of the most controversial provisions is the proposal to reinterpret or restrict birthright citizenship, currently guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states: “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 bill supports the executive order issued by President Trump on January 20, 2025, instructing federal agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. whose parents are in the country illegally or only temporarily, such as those with student or work visas.
The administration argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of individuals without permanent residency or citizenship, challenging the interpretation established by the 1898 ruling United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed birthright citizenship for nearly all born on U.S. soil, with exceptions such as children of diplomats, enemies in military occupation, or members of sovereign tribes.
June 2025 Supreme Court decision.
On June 27, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 ruling in the case CASA v. Trump, limiting the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions that block executive policies. The decision, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not rule on the constitutionality of the executive order on citizenship, but it did restrict the courts’ scope in halting its widespread enforcement.
The ruling allows the administration to move forward with implementing its policy in at least 28 states not involved in active litigation, starting in mid-July 2025, after a 30-day grace period. The Court’s conservative majority argued that nationwide injunctions exceed the authority granted to federal courts and that judges should limit relief to the specific plaintiffs in each case.
However, Justice Barrett left open the possibility of broader injunctions when states are the primary plaintiffs. In dissent, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that this precedent weakens the judiciary’s role in checking executive abuses and could create a fragmented legal system where rights vary by state.
Potential changes to citizenship requirements
The Big Beautiful Bill and the executive order seek to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States if neither parent is a citizen or legal resident. This proposal represents a break from the historical interpretation of the 14th Amendment and could affect around 150,000 children annually.
For example, a baby born in Texas to parents without legal immigration status could be excluded from the civil registry, while one born in California, where litigation is ongoing, could continue to be recognized as a citizen.
Supporters of the measure claim that this reform will deter illegal immigration and practices such as “birth tourism,” where foreigners enter the country to give birth and secure citizenship for their children. President Trump has called automatic citizenship a “magnet” that encourages irregular immigration.
On the other hand, civil rights organizations and 22 states led by Democrats argue that the proposal violates the Constitution and overturns a legal precedent of over 160 years. They warn of possible legal “chaos” if citizenship depends on birthplace, potentially resulting in stateless children or those with uncertain nationality. Constitutional experts argue that the Wong Kim Ark ruling and subsequent decisions clearly uphold the right to birthright citizenship.
Fragmented application by state
The Court’s decision allows the federal policy to apply only in states not protected by litigation, creating an uneven system of implementation. Courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C. must now limit their injunctions to individual plaintiffs, such as immigrant advocacy organizations CASA and the Asylum Seekers Advocacy Project. This may lead to different interpretations and applications depending on the state, directly affecting the lives of newborns based on their place of birth.
While the administration defends this approach as a return to respect for executive authority and a check on what it considers “judicial activism,” critics like Justice Sotomayor warn that the result will be an “extremely confusing” system that weakens the principle of equality under the law.
Immigrant rights organizations fear that the burden will fall on hospitals and local officials to determine citizenship eligibility, potentially forcing medical staff to verify parents’ immigration status at the time of birth.
Legal reaction and class actions
In response to the Court’s decision, organizations like CASA have turned to class action lawsuits to expand protection to all children potentially affected by the policy. These actions seek to certify a national class including those born since February 19, 2025, who could be denied citizenship under the executive order. Through these lawsuits, they aim to achieve an effect similar to that of a nationwide injunction.
Class actions thus emerge as a key strategy in the face of the new restrictions, to ensure that constitutional protections are applied fairly and uniformly nationwide.
The combined effect of the Big Beautiful Bill and the Supreme Court decision could radically transform the concept and guarantees of citizenship in the United States.
About The Author
