Does Trump get to redefine who is a US citizen? The supreme court must decide

If enough people go along with something, it doesn't matter what the rules are. That's why the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.

Hi, this is Nikki from The Guardian US. The US supreme court on Wednesday (4/1/26) appeared set to [protect birthright citizenship](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/01/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-case) in what would be a blow to a key immigration policy for Donald Trump. Guardian reporter Maanvi Singh shares a take on how the decision of who gets to be a US citizen now lies in the hands of the Supreme Court. *From the Guardian:* It was a surreal morning at the [US supreme court](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/us-supreme-court). For more than two hours, the nation’s highest court considered arguments over whether [Donald Trump](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump) – via an executive order – could tear down an idea that has been fundamental to the story and trajectory of the United States: that almost anyone born on US soil is an US citizen. The US president himself was in the room – the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the court – coming face to face with justices that he has long berated and pressured to fall in line with his agenda. His attendance was a striking signal of just how significant this case is. The egalitarian, universal rule that anyone born in the US is a US citizen was enshrined in the 14th amendment of the US constitution in 1868, and was affirmed by the supreme court 128 years ago. A ruling in favor of the Trump administration would cataclysmically redefine what it means to be an American. In practical terms, it would mean that an estimated 250,000 babies born in the United States each year would be stripped of their citizenship. Some would be stateless. Legal experts warn that this outcome could pave the way for casting off citizenship from millions of people who already have it. A final decision is expected in June, and after the oral arguments concluded, [a majority of the justices remained skeptical](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/01/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-case) of Trump’s efforts to restrict birthright citizenship. The chief justice, John Roberts, at one point, noted that the administration’s evidence that the 14th amendment did not broadly apply struck him as “very quirky”. Elena Kagan, a justice, said that the administration’s legal representative, solicitor general John Sauer, was “looking for some more technical, esoteric meaning” in the citizenship clause. [You can read the full analysis at this link for free.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/01/trump-supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-arguments?referring_host=Listnook&utm_campaign=guardianacct)

No, unless he decides that mail-order brides from Slovenia, their spawn, and their parents are the ones who don’t qualify.