WSJ Editors Doubt Trump's Birthright Citizenship Case Will Survive Supreme Court

Conservative editorial board argues Trump's executive order to redefine 'jurisdiction' in 14th Amendment lacks legal basis.

Apr. 1, 2026 at 12:20am by Ben Kaplan

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial board has expressed skepticism that President Donald Trump's executive order to repeal birthright citizenship will survive the Supreme Court, even though the court is filled with Trump's own nominees. The board argues that Trump's attempt to redefine the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the 14th Amendment lacks legal merit and that the proper place to address illegal immigration is at the border, not by changing a 'settled meaning' of the Constitution.

Why it matters

This case has major implications for how the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship for those 'born or naturalized in the United States' is interpreted. Trump's effort to exclude the children of temporary visa holders and undocumented immigrants from birthright citizenship is seen by many legal experts as unconstitutional, but the conservative-leaning Supreme Court will ultimately decide the issue.

The details

The Wall Street Journal editorial board argues that while the Supreme Court should not be afraid to overturn 'incorrect' legal doctrines, in this case there is a 'reason the orthodoxy became the orthodoxy.' The board says Trump's administration is trying to invent a new definition of 'jurisdiction' that would exclude babies born to temporary visa holders and undocumented immigrants, despite the overwhelming consensus among judges and legal experts that birthright citizenship applies to anyone born in the U.S. except in narrow circumstances like children of foreign diplomats.

  • The Supreme Court is hearing the case, Trump v. Barbara, this week.

The players

Donald Trump

The former president who issued an executive order to repeal birthright citizenship, which is now being challenged in the Supreme Court.

Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

The conservative editorial board of the Wall Street Journal newspaper, which has expressed skepticism about Trump's legal case.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“When a longtime legal doctrine is incorrect, the Justices shouldn't shy away from fixing it merely because of age. Yet other times there's a reason the orthodoxy became the orthodoxy, and the case about birthright citizenship, Trump v. Barbara, might be one of those.”

— Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

“The Trump Administration argues … that birthright citizenship covers only people 'completely subject' to U.S. 'political jurisdiction,' meaning those 'who owe 'direct and immediate allegiance' to the Nation and may claim its protection.' Its reading excludes babies born to temporary visa holders, as well as illegal migrants, who 'lack the legal capacity to form a domicile.'”

— Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

“The U.S. has a strong record of assimilating newcomers, from Asians in San Francisco to Irish in New York to Cubans in Miami, and birthright citizenship has been part of that story. At the same time, illegal immigration has become a serious problem, as the American left refuses to enforce the law. But the place to fight it is at the border, and Mr. Trump has virtually halted migrant flows. It didn't require trying to change the settled meaning of the 14th Amendment by executive action.”

— Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

What’s next

The Supreme Court will issue a ruling on the case, Trump v. Barbara, in the coming months.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing debate over the scope of birthright citizenship and the limits of executive power to unilaterally redefine constitutional provisions. Even conservative legal experts are skeptical that Trump's attempt to exclude certain categories of immigrants from birthright citizenship will withstand judicial scrutiny, underscoring the high bar for overturning a long-established legal doctrine.