Supreme Court to Hear Trump Case That Could Redefine U.S. Citizenship
At stake: birthright citizenship, judicial power, and whether presidents can rewrite the Constitution by executive order.
WASHINGTON — In a year already packed with historic headlines, one of the most consequential Supreme Court cases in a generation may have flown under the radar.
Set for oral arguments on May 15, the consolidated case — Donald J. Trump, et al. v. CASA, et al. (Nos. 24A884, 24A885, 24A886) — will test the limits of presidential power, judicial authority, and birthright citizenship under the Constitution.
At stake: Can the Executive Branch unilaterally reinterpret the Constitution? Can courts block such executive orders nationwide? And are children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants entitled to citizenship?
Migrant Insider is sponsored by
Speaker Johnson and Pelosi Respond
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., a self-described constitutional scholar, downplayed the case when asked for comment.
“I haven’t had a chance to review it,” Johnson said.
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., offered a more expansive—if rambling—response.
“The court has the right to constitutional review of the constitutionality of what all of us do,” Pelosi said. “People say, ‘So-and-so shouldn’t be doing that. The president should be...’ Yeah, but we in Congress, the first branch of government, must honor the constitutional requirement of what we do.”
When asked whether the president has authority to interpret the Constitution through executive orders, Pelosi said: “I don't think so. But again, the lawyers will tend to that. Some people even think Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided.”
The Precedent: Marbury v. Madison
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court asserted its role as the final interpreter of the Constitution. The decision, authored by Chief Justice John Marshall, established the principle of judicial review.
Trump’s legal team is now challenging that bedrock precedent, claiming the president—not the Court—has ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution.
Senate Democrats Push Back
Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., didn’t mince words when asked if Trump has that power.
“No! No! NO!” Luján said.
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., echoed that view and pointed directly to Marbury.
“Absolutely not,” Coons said. “It is the province of the Supreme Court to determine interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. Birthright citizenship is clearly part of constitutional text and not subject to unilateral revision by a president.”
Coons also defended the courts’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions.
“Obama and Biden didn’t like it when courts slowed their policies. But they respected the rulings—and the role of the courts in our system of liberty,” Coons said. “Trump should do the same.”
MIGRANT INSIDER IS SPONSORED BY
Raskin: ‘This Case Is Not Hard’
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a former constitutional law professor, called the case legally straightforward.
“It’s not a hard case. It’s an easy case—and it’s already been decided the same way by four different judges,” Raskin said. “Two appointed by Democrats and two by Republicans, including one Reagan appointee who said it was the easiest case he’s ever had to decide.”
On Birthright Citizenship
Raskin argued that the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clearly includes children born to undocumented immigrants.
“Any baby born in America is under the jurisdiction of the United States—unless they’re the child of a foreign ambassador born on embassy property,” Raskin said. “It’s a very narrow exception.”
On Executive Orders and Judicial Power
“An executive order is subordinate to federal law, which is subordinate to the Constitution,” Raskin said. “Executive orders are essentially inter-office memos within the executive branch. They do not override the Constitution.”
He also defended nationwide injunctions as a necessary judicial tool.
“When federal law has nationwide application, courts can and do issue rulings with nationwide effect,” Raskin said. “That’s been the law for a long time.”
A Warning About Republican Rhetoric
Raskin expressed concern that some Republicans are undermining the legitimacy of judicial review.
“The problem is that Republicans keep saying their interpretation of the Constitution should govern because they won the election,” he said. “That’s not how it works. We don’t have elections to decide whether people have due process or free speech. That’s why we have an independent judiciary.”
What Comes Next
Migrant Insider will be in the Supreme Court press box for oral arguments and will go live afterward with full coverage and analysis.
As Raskin noted, the case should be simple. But its implications are vast. The outcome could redefine constitutional boundaries for generations—well beyond immigration. Stay tuned.