The Supreme Court heard a case this month centered on President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end so-called birthright citizenship, in one of the most closely watched and potentially impactful cases heard by the court in recent years.  

Though the case itself was used largely as a means of challenging lower court powers to issue so-called universal or nationwide injunctions, justices on the high court did inquire about the merits of the order itself, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which Trump signed on the first day of his second White House term.

The order, which was slated to take force Feb. 20, directed all U.S. agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents to children born to illegal immigrants or children born to mothers living in the country on a temporary visa, if the father is not a permanent resident or U.S. citizen.

Despite the Supreme Court’s focus on universal injunctions in hearing the case, deep and unyielding concerns persist about Trump’s attempt to undo more than 100 years of legal precedent. 

JUDGES V TRUMP: HERE ARE THE KEY COURT BATTLES HALTING THE WHITE HOUSE AGENDA

The ACLU included in its lawsuit the story of one couple from Indonesia but living in New Hampshire whom they said would be affected by the order.

“They arrived in 2023, applied for asylum, and their application awaits review,” ACLU attorneys said of the couple. “The mom-to-be is in her third trimester. 

“Under this executive order, their baby would be considered an undocumented noncitizen and could be denied basic health care and nutrition, putting the newborn at grave risk at such a vulnerable stage of life,” they added.

And such problems would persist throughout their lives, lawyers for the group noted. These persons would not be able to obtain necessary identification, such as drivers’ licenses, and would not be able to vote, hold some jobs or serve on juries.

Though Trump had spoken in detail in his first term and on the campaign trail about wanting to end birthright citizenship, his executive order sent shockwaves through the nation. It was met by a wave of lawsuits from Democrat-led states and immigrants’ rights groups. 

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP’S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

Demonstrators hold up signs during a “Hands Off!” protest against President Donald Trump at the Washington Monument in Washington, Saturday, April 5, 2025.  (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

One lawsuit, brought by 18 Democratic attorneys general, warned that ending birthright citizenship would strip hundreds of thousands of U.S.-born children of their citizenship as the result of a circumstance completely outside a child’s control.

Statistics also bear this out. Roughly 150,000 children are born annually in the U.S. to parents of noncitizens.  If the order were to take force as Trump envisioned, experts warned the impact would be catastrophic.

​​”President Trump’s attempt to unilaterally end birthright citizenship is a flagrant violation of our Constitution,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who joined 17 other Democrat-led states in suing to block the order, said earlier this year.

TRUMP FACES ANOTHER DEPORTATION SETBACK WITH 4TH CIRCUIT APPEALS COURT

The U.S. Supreme Court is at the center of fresh debate over the interpretation of a core clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

“For more than 150 years, our country has followed the same basic rule: Babies who are born in this country are American citizens,” Platkin added.

More than 22 U.S. states and immigrants’ rights groups sued the Trump administration to block the change to birthright citizenship prior to the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case, arguing in court filings that the executive order is both unconstitutional and “unprecedented.”

To date, no court has sided with the Trump administration in upholding the executive order.

The man just had his immigration case dismissed and his wife and 8-year-old son were trailing behind him when agents surrounded, then handcuffed him outside the downtown Los Angeles courtroom.

Erick Eduardo Fonseca Solorzano stood speechless. His wife trembled in panic. The federal agents explained in Spanish that he would be put into expedited removal proceedings.

Just moments earlier on Friday, Judge Peter A. Kim had issued a dismissal of his deportation case. Now his son watched in wide-eyed disbelief as agents quickly shuffled him to a service elevator — and he was gone. The boy was silent, sticking close by his mother, tears welling.

“This kid will be traumatized for life,” said Lindsay Toczylowski, chief executive and co-founder of Immigrant Defenders Law Center, who reached out to the family to help them with their case.

Similar scenes are taking place across the country as the Department of Homeland Security asks to dismiss its own deportation cases, after which agents promptly arrest the immigrants to pursue expedited removals, which require no hearings before a judge.

The courthouse arrests escalate the Trump administration’s efforts to speed up deportations. Migrants who can’t prove they have been in the U.S. for more than two years are eligible to be deported without a judicial hearing. Historically, these expedited removals were done only at the border, but the administration has sought to expand their use.

The policies are being challenged in court.

“Secretary [Kristi] Noem is reversing Biden’s catch-and-release policy that allowed millions of unvetted illegal aliens to be let loose on American streets,” said a senior official from the Department of Homeland Security.

The official said most immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally within the last two years “are subject to expedited removals.” But he noted that if they have a valid credible fear claim, as required by law, they will continue in immigration proceedings.

Toczylowski said it was Fonseca Solorzano’s first appearance in court. Like many of those apprehended this week, Fonseca Solorzano arrived in the United States from Honduras via CPB One, an application set up during the Biden administration that provided asylum seekers a way to enter the country legally after going through a background check.

Erendira De La Riva, left, Sarai De La Riva and Maria Elena De La Riva speak to the media Friday about the status of Alvaro De La Riva, who was detained the previous night by ICE and taken to the North Los Angeles Street Immigration Court.

(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

More than 900,000 people were allowed in the country on immigration parole under the app, starting in January 2023. The Trump administration has turned the tool into a self-deportation app.

“We are punishing the people who are following the rules, who are doing what the government asks them to do,” Toczylowski said.

“I think that this practice certainly seemed to have shaken up some of the court staff, because it’s so unusual and because it’s such bad policy to be doing this, considering who it targets and the ripple effects that it will have, it’ll cause people to be afraid to come to court.”

A Times reporter witnessed three arrests on Friday in the windowless court hallways on the eighth floor of the Federal Building downtown. An agent in plain clothes in the courtroom came out to signal to agents in the hallway, one wearing a red flannel shirt, when an immigrant subject to detainment was about to exit.

“No, please,” cried Gabby Gaitan, as half a dozen agents swarmed her boyfriend and handcuffed him. His manila folder of documents spilled onto the floor. She crumpled to the ground in tears. “Where are they taking him?”

Richard Pulido, a 25-year-old Venezuelan, had arrived at the border last fall and was appearing for the first time, she said. He had been scared about attending the court hearing, but she told him missing it would make his situation worse.

Gaitan said Pulido came to the U.S. last September after fleeing violence in his home country.

An immigrant from Kazakhstan, who asked the judge not to dismiss his case without success, walked out of the courtroom. On a bench across from the doors, two immigration agents nodded at each other and one mouthed, “Let’s go.”

They stood quickly and called out to the man. They directed him off to the side and behind doors that led to a service elevator. He looked defeated, head bowed, as they searched him, handcuffed him and shuffled him into the service elevator.

Lawyers, who were at courthouses in Santa Ana and Los Angeles this week, say it appears that the effort was highly coordinated between Homeland Security lawyers and federal agents. Families and lawyers have described similar accounts in Miami, Seattle, New York, San Diego, Chicago and elsewhere.

During the hearing for Pulido, Homeland Security lawyer Carolyn Marie Thompkins explicitly stated why she was asking to dismiss the removal proceedings.

“The government intends to pursue expedited removal in this case,” she said. Pulido appeared confused as to what a dismissal would mean and asked the judge for clarity. Pulido opposed having his case dropped.

“I feel that I can contribute a lot to this country,” he said.

Kim said it was not enough and dismissed the case.

People line up outside the North Los Angeles Street Immigration Court before hearings on Friday.

(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

The courthouse arrests have frustrated immigrant rights advocates who say the rules of the game are changing daily for migrants trying to work within the system.

“Immigration court should be a place where people go to present their claims for relief, have them assessed, get an up or down on whether they can stay and have that done in a way that affords them due process,” said Talia Inlender, deputy director at the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law School. “That is being ripped away sort of at every turn.

“It’s another attempt by the Trump administration to stoke fear in the community. And it specifically appears to be targeting people who are doing the right thing, following exactly what the government has asked them to do,” she said.