President Donald Trump announced plans to petition the Supreme Court for a rehearing of its birthright citizenship decision, calling the 6-3 ruling that blocked his executive order a "miscarriage of justice" that threatens American sovereignty. The move comes 9 days after the court's June 30 decision struck down Trump's attempt to end automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to parents in the country without authorization.
"AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS NOT FOR SALE! In fact, that is a crime, and therefore, the Supreme Court's ruling is wrong," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY." He added that the decision "will destroy America if they don't change their absolutely insane decision."
The Constitutional Question
The Supreme Court's majority held that babies born in the United States automatically become citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that children born to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily in the United States satisfy the citizenship clause, 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 ruling determined that Trump's directive violated this constitutional language.
Trump issued the executive order ending birthright citizenship 1 year ago on his first day back in office as part of a comprehensive approach to crack down on legal and illegal immigration. The decision marked a major blow to Trump's hardline immigration agenda centered on large-scale deportations of immigrants in the country unlawfully.
Long-Shot Legal Strategy
Under the Supreme Court's rules, parties in a case have 25 days to petition for a rehearing to challenge a judgment or decision based on the merits. Such rehearings have rarely been granted, making Trump's request a long-shot bid for a different outcome in a case the court so recently decided. The Supreme Court reportedly has not agreed to rehear a ruling of a case already argued since 1965. The last time it reversed a decision it had made in an argued case was 1956.
The court has not granted a rehearing after issuing a ruling in an argued case in decades, making the president's chances of success extremely slim based on historical precedent.
Congressional Alternative
Trump quickly called on Congress to take legislative action to prohibit birthright citizenship following the ruling. House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a July 5 interview on Fox News, "If there is a bill that can fix that, we'll advance that immediately." However, because a majority of justices found that birthright citizenship is constitutionally protected under the 14th Amendment, prohibiting the policy would seemingly require amending the Constitution. That process would need support from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three-fourths of the nation's state legislatures.
The constitutional amendment route presents a formidable challenge, requiring unprecedented political consensus in a divided Congress and across state legislatures nationwide.
Why This Matters:
This legal battle strikes at the heart of how America defines citizenship and controls its borders. The Supreme Court's ruling affirms a constitutional interpretation that's shaped immigration policy for generations, but it also highlights the tension between executive authority and judicial constraints on immigration reform. Trump's insistence on pursuing a rehearing—despite historical precedent suggesting futility—signals his determination to reshape citizenship rules he views as exploitable loopholes. The conflict between the executive and judicial branches on this issue leaves Congress as the only viable path forward, though the constitutional amendment threshold is exceptionally high. The outcome affects not just immigration enforcement but the broader question of whether elected leaders can modify citizenship policies without clearing constitutional hurdles that require supermajority consensus.