The battle over birthright citizenship in the United States is potentially poised to reach the U.S. Supreme Court after a pivotal legal setback.

The Trump administration is appealing a federal court's decision that blocked an executive order ending automatic citizenship for children of non-citizens born in the U.S, as the Daily Caller reports.

On Jan. 20, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at revising the criteria for birthright citizenship. This order specifically targeted children born to illegal immigrants and those with temporary legal status, denying them automatic U.S. citizenship.

However, this order was soon challenged in court. U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour, during a court hearing, questioned the constitutional foundation of the President's executive order. Appointed by Ronald Reagan, Judge Coughenour's skepticism hints at potential difficulties the administration might face in higher courts.

Judge Blocks Attempt to Redefine Birthright Citizenship

Coughenour, based in Seattle and aged 83, did not mince words when addressing the controversial order.

He expressed difficulty in comprehending how the order was viewed as constitutional. His ruling temporarily halted the enforcement of the executive order, citing serious constitutional concerns.

In response to this ruling, the Department of Justice announced its intent to "vigorously defend" the executive order.

They plan to take the case to the Supreme Court, expecting to argue that their interpretation of the 14th Amendment aligns with the nation’s foundational laws.

DOJ Prepares for Potential Supreme Court Battle

A Department of Justice spokesperson stated, “The Department of Justice will vigorously defend President Trump’s EO, which correctly interprets the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

We look forward to presenting a full merits argument to the Court and to the American people, who are desperate to see our Nation’s laws enforced.”

The heart of the legal contention lies in the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," found in the 14th Amendment.

The Trump administration argues for a narrower interpretation, influenced by the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which might exclude children born to non-citizens who are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Historical Precedents and Modern Controversies

The Supreme Court's previous ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark recognized birthright citizenship for the children of legal Chinese residents, setting a longstanding precedent. However, the current administration believes that precedent should not necessarily apply to illegal residents or those with merely temporary legal status.

The controversial executive order stipulates that birthright citizenship should now only apply to children born to at least one U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident.

This is seen as a measure to combat what the administration terms “birth tourism,” which allegedly results in significant numbers of children acquiring U.S. citizenship despite their parents’ temporary or illegal status.

Public Opinion on Citizenship Trends

Data from Pew Research highlights the demographics and statistics about children born to illegal immigrants in the U.S., which has become a focal point of the current administration's policymaking. This data feeds into the broader debate about immigration and citizenship policies and their impacts on national security and demographics.

As this legal battle moves ahead, the nation watches closely. The Supreme Court’s decision on this issue could redefine the understanding of citizenship and significantly impact immigration policy in the United States.

A senior DOJ official emphasized, “We think we have very good arguments that correctly interpret the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.” The forthcoming months will reveal how these arguments will hold up before the justices of the Supreme Court.