2026-03-29T06:52:07-04:00 / 福克斯新闻频道
该行政命令将拒绝给予2025年2月19日之后出生、父母为非法移民或持临时签证者的儿童美国公民身份
作者：香农·布里姆、比尔·米尔斯 福克斯新闻
发布于 2026年3月29日 美国东部时间上午6:40 | 更新于 2026年3月29日 美国东部时间上午6:52
最高法院即将解答一个已被忽视一个多世纪的核心宪法问题：谁有资格成为美国公民？
法官们将于周三举行口头辩论，审议唐纳德·特朗普总统限制美国出生公民权的举措。这一具有里程碑意义的案件可能会颠覆数百万美国公民及合法居民的生活。
争议焦点在于总统在再次就职首日签署的行政命令，该命令将终止几乎所有在美国出生、父母为非法移民或持合法临时身份者的自动公民资格——这一重大法律、政治和社会变革被批评者指出将打破150多年的法律先例。
预计三个月内将作出裁决，在此之前特朗普的相关计划仍处于暂停状态。
如何让唐纳德·特朗普总统的移民禁令在法庭上站得住脚
本案是最高法院本开庭期将依据案情实质审理的特朗普一系列全面行政命令上诉案中的第四起，该系列上诉案共五起。
由九名大法官组成的法庭此前已驳回了特朗普针对大多数国家的互惠关税政策，该政策援引了经济紧急状态法。另一项关于终止临时保护身份移民福利的争议将于4月晚些时候进行辩论。
目前仍待裁决的还有总统罢免包括美联储理事在内的独立机构成员的权力相关案件。
但自特朗普再次就职以来，政府在最高法院的多数紧急上诉案中胜诉，这些上诉仅涉及受质疑的政策能否在下级法院审理期间暂时生效，相关议题涉及移民政策、联邦开支削减、裁员以及军队中的跨性别者相关规定等。
宪法含义
目前提交高等法院进行最终复审的特朗普行政命令将重新解释第十四修正案，该修正案规定：“所有在合众国出生或归化合众国并受其管辖的人，都是合众国的和他们居住州的公民。”特朗普总统认为该条款长期以来遭到了误读。
第14160号行政命令题为“保护美国公民身份的意义和价值”，将拒绝给予2025年2月19日之后出生、父母为非法移民或持合法临时非移民签证者的儿童公民身份。同时该命令禁止联邦机构签发或接受承认这些儿童公民身份的文件。
“美国公民身份的特权是一份无价且意义深远的礼物，”该行政命令中写道，“但第十四修正案从未被解释为将公民身份普遍赋予所有在美国境内出生的人。”
最高法院对此问题的裁决可能会产生广泛的全国性影响。特朗普政府官员认为，这一问题是其强硬移民政策的关键组成部分，而该政策已成为他第二任白宫任期的标志性特征。
出生公民权支持者因忽视明显证据而误解法律
特朗普司法部在向最高法院提交的请愿书中称，去年所有下级法院裁定该行政命令无效的判决都基于一种“错误观点”，可能带来“破坏性后果”。
“下级法院的判决以破坏我们边境安全的方式，废除了对总统及其政府至关重要的一项政策，”将在口头辩论中亲自出庭陈述的美国司法部长约翰·绍尔说道。
“这些判决在没有合法依据的情况下，将美国公民身份的特权赋予了数十万不合格的人群，”他补充道。
反对者认为此举违宪且“史无前例”，并指出根据皮尤研究中心的数据，这将威胁到美国每年约15万名父母为非公民的新生儿，以及估计460万名与非法移民父母共同生活的18岁以下美国出生儿童。
由约二十个州组成的联合团体、移民权利组织以及包括马里兰州数名孕妇在内的私人个人已提起集体诉讼。
原告包括原本来自中国台湾和巴西的人士，他们寻求保留获得与公民身份相关福利的权利，包括社会保障、食品补助（SNAP）和医疗补助（Medicaid）。
迄今为止，没有任何法院支持特朗普政府对第十四修正案的解释，并阻止该行政命令生效。
美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）和其他移民倡导组织指责特朗普试图“单方面改写第十四修正案”。
“联邦法院一致裁定特朗普总统的行政命令违反宪法、违反1898年最高法院的一项裁决以及国会通过的法律，”将在庭审中为原告方辩护的ACLU法律主任塞西莉亚·王说道，“我们期待在本开庭期的最高法院彻底解决这一问题。”
辩论焦点
本次公开庭审的大部分内容将聚焦于宪法中的一句话，政府称该条款限制了公民权。
“第十四修正案一直将在美国出生但‘不受其管辖’的人排除在出生公民权之外，”特朗普最初的行政命令中写道，司法部对此的解读本质上是“受美国法律管辖”，这将赋予政府自行排除父母非法入境者的子女公民身份的自由裁量权。
但原告方律师表示，一项百年前的最高法院裁决确认，该短语仅排除外国外交官或敌对势力所生子女的自动公民资格。
支持广泛传统解释的人士指出了第十四修正案的起源——该修正案在南北战争后通过，旨在结束将包括奴隶和自由黑人在内的非洲裔人群永久排除在美国公民之外的做法。
特朗普政府将拜登时代的关键移民政策置于警示之下：“不可持续的循环”
(Getty Images)
31年后，最高法院首次就外籍父母在美国出生的子女的身份作出裁决，确立了公民权条款在未来案件中的适用先例。
原告黄锦耀（音译）出生于旧金山，职业是厨师，但受《排华法案》影响，在出国旅行后被拒绝重新入境美国。
在这项具有里程碑意义的裁决中，最高法院得出结论：“根据宪法第十四修正案第一款，在美国出生的华人父母所生子女，在其出生时父母为中国皇帝的臣民，但在美国拥有永久住所和居所……在其出生时即成为美国公民。”
影响
皮尤研究中心近期的一项民调询问美国人是否希望移民、临时移民或任何合法留在美国的移民的子女获得公民身份，94%的受访者表示支持。
政府计划的批评者担心，执法将陷入混乱且不公平的碎片化状态，部分州、部分家庭会适用不同规则，且政策可能范围广泛。
“根据这项行政命令，这个孩子出生时就是非公民，”弗吉尼亚大学法学院移民与人权项目主任阿曼达·弗罗斯特说道，“他们被剥夺了公民的所有福利和特权，理论上在出生第一天就可以被驱逐。而此后每一个美国家庭生育子女时，都必须证明父母的身份，孩子才能被美国政府认定为公民。即便你的祖先乘坐五月花号来到美国也不例外。未来所有人都必须证明这一点。”
但移民改革倡导者指出了该制度下的滥用行为。
杰克逊大法官撰写一致通过的最高法院意见书，为特朗普赢得移民案胜利
“这就是对美国出生公民权政策的滥用……尤其是针对中华人民共和国国民的情况，”政府问责研究所主席彼得·施魏策尔说道，“生育旅游本质上是一个行业，为外国国民（在本案中是中国公民）提供全程礼宾服务，他们向公司支付约10万美元，公司会将他们带到美国，安排医疗服务，为孩子办理公民身份，”他补充道，“一旦孩子到了可以旅行的年龄，他们就会返回中国。”
在去年5月最高法院首次审理特朗普的出生公民权行政命令的口头辩论中，法庭上许多大法官对特朗普政府的立场持怀疑态度。
政府的立场“完全说不通”，索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官表示，这可能会让一些儿童“无国籍”。
“在我看来，这项命令违反了四项最高法院先例，”索托马约尔补充道，“你们不仅声称最高法院，还声称下级法院都无法阻止行政部门普遍违反本院的这些裁决。”
“在该命令生效当天——这只是一个关于其将如何运作的实际问题，”布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官问道，“医院该如何处理新生儿？各州该如何处理新生儿？”涉及在出生证明上确定公民身份的问题。
“我认为他们不会有任何不同的做法，”绍尔回答道，“行政命令第二条的意思是，联邦官员不会接受那些受本命令约束的人所提交的公民身份标注错误的文件。”
“他们怎么知道呢？”卡瓦诺摇着头问道。
本案案号为特朗普诉芭芭拉案（25-365），芭芭拉是一名担心自身及家人安全的洪都拉斯公民的化名。她的孩子于2025年10月在美国出生，就在她作为指定原告加入诉讼数月后。
香农·布里姆目前担任《福克斯新闻周日》节目主持人。她于2007年加入该电视台，担任驻华盛顿特区记者，负责报道最高法院事务。
Supreme Court prepares to review Trump executive order on birthright citizenship
2026-03-29T06:52:07-04:00 / Fox News
The executive order would deny citizenship to children born after February 19, 2025 to undocumented or temporary-visa parents
By Shannon Bream , Bill Mears Fox News
Published March 29, 2026 6:40am EDT | Updated March 29, 2026 6:52am EDT
The Supreme Court is poised to answer a fundamental constitutional question largely ignored for more than a century:Who qualifies as an American citizen?
The justices on Wednesday will hold oral arguments to review President Donald Trump’s efforts to limit birthright citizenship in the U.S., a landmark case with the potential to upend the lives of millions of Americans and lawful residents.
At issue is the executive order the president signed on his first day back in office, which would end automatic citizenship for nearly all persons born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, or parents with lawful temporary status in the country — a seismic legal, political, and social shift that critics note would break with more than 150 years of legal precedent.
A ruling is expected within three months but until then, Trump’s plans remain on hold.
HOW TO MAKE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION PAUSE STICK IN COURT
The Supreme Court is seen on Friday, Feb. 20, 2026.(Annabelle Gordon/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The case is the fourth of a five-part series of appeals the Supreme Court will consider this term on the merits of Trump’s sweeping executive agenda.
The nine-member bench has already tossed out his reciprocal tariffs on most other countries, which relied on an economic emergency law. A separate dispute over ending protections for migrants with temporary protected status will be argued later in April.
Still pending are rulings on the president’s ability to fire members of independent agencies, including Federal Reserve governors.
But the administration has been winning most of the emergency appeals at the Supreme Court since Trump took office again, which dealt only with whether challenged policies could go into effect temporarily, while the issues play out in the lower courts– including immigration, federal spending cuts, workforce reductions, and transgender people in the military.
Constitutional Meaning
Trump’s order now before the high court for final review would reinterpret the 14th Amendment, 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” — a provision the president argues has been misinterpreted.
Executive Order 14160, entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” would deny it to those born after February 19, 2025 whose parents are illegal immigrants, or those who were here legally but on temporary non-immigrant visas.
And it bans federal agencies from issuing or accepting documents recognizing citizenship for those children.
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” says part of the order. “But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”
A Supreme Court ruling on the issue could have sweeping national implications for an issue Trump officials argue is a crucial component of his hardline immigration agenda, which has become a defining feature of his second White House term.
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP SUPPORTERS GET THE LAW WRONG BY IGNORING OBVIOUS EVIDENCE
Demonstrators hold up an anti-Trump sign outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on June 27, 2025.(ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)
In its high court petition, the Trump Justice Department said all lower court decisions handed down last year striking down the executive order had relied on a “mistaken view” with potentially “destructive consequences.”
“The lower courts’ decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” said John Sauer, U.S. Solicitor General, who will make the case in person at oral arguments.
“Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people,” he added.
Opponents argue the effort is unconstitutional and “unprecedented,” and would threaten some 150,000 children in the U.S. born annually to parents of non-citizens, and an estimated 4.6 million American-born children under 18 who are living with an undocumented immigrant parent, according to data from the Pew Research Center.
Separate coalitions of about two dozen states, along with immigrant rights groups, and private individuals — including several pregnant women in Maryland — had filed a class-action lawsuit.
The plaintiffs — including those originally from Taiwan and Brazil — seek to preserve access to citizenship-related benefits including Social Security, SNAP, and Medicaid.
To date, no court has sided with the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and blocked the order from taking force.
The ACLU and other immigrant advocacy groups in the U.S., have accused Trump of attempting to “unilaterally rewrite the 14th Amendment.”
“The federal courts have unanimously held that President Trump’s executive order is contrary to the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision from 1898, and a law enacted by Congress,” said ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang, who will argue for the plaintiffs in the courtroom session. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
The Arguments
Much of the public session is expected to focus on a phrase in the Constitution that the government asserts limits the citizenship right.
“The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’” said Trump’s original order, which the Justice Department essentially interprets as “being subject to U.S. law” — which would give the government discretion to exclude those whose parents are in the country illegally.
But lawyers for the plaintiffs say a century-old Supreme Court ruling affirmed the phrase only excluded automatic citizenship to children born to foreign diplomats or hostile forces.
Supporters of a broad, traditional interpretation point to the 14th Amendment’s origins — passed after the Civil War to end the practice of excluding individuals of African descent, including slaves and free persons, from ever becoming U.S. citizens.
TRUMP ADMIN PUTS KEY BIDEN-ERA IMMIGRATION POLICY ON NOTICE: ‘UNSUSTAINABLE CYCLE’
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a press conference in the James S. Brady Briefing Room at the White House, on June 27, 2025, in Washington D.C., following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limits the application of birthright citizenship. (Photo by Mehmet Eser / Middle East Images via AFP)(Getty Images)
Thirty-one years after its enactment, the Supreme Court for the first time decided the status of children born in the U.S. to alien parents, creating the precedent of how the Citizenship Clause would be applied in future cases.
Plaintiff Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco and became a cook, but was subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act and denied reentry to the U-S after a trip abroad.
In its landmark ruling, the high court concluded, “A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States… becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.”
The Impact
A recent Pew Research poll asked Americans whether they wanted children of immigrants, temporary immigrants or any immigrants lawfully present in the United States to be citizens, and 94% said yes.
Critics of the administration’s plans fear a chaotic and unfair patchwork of enforcement that would apply in some states and not others, some families and not others, and that it could be sweeping in scope.
“Under the executive order, that child is born a non-citizen,” Amanda Frost, director of the Immigration, Migration and Human Rights Program at the University of Virginia School of Law. “Denied all the benefits and privileges of citizenship and theoretically deportable on day one of their life. And then every single American family having a child will now have to prove their status before that child is considered a citizen by the U.S. government. And that doesn’t matter if they go back to the Mayflower. That’s what everyone will have to prove going forward.”
But immigration reform advocates point to what they call abuses in the system.
JUSTICE JACKSON AUTHORS UNANIMOUS SCOTUS OPINION HANDING TRUMP AN IMMIGRATION WIN
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Brent Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Mary Coney Barrett attend the State of the Union address during a Joint Session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on February 24, 2026, in Washington, DC.(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
“That is the exploitation of America’s birthright citizenship policy… particularly those by nationals of the People’s Republic of China,” Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute. “Birth tourism is essentially an industry that provides concierge service at every step of the way for a foreign national, in this case China, to pay the firm roughly $100,000, they will transport them to the United States, arrange medical care, arrange citizenship for the child,” he added. “And as soon as the child is old enough to travel, they will return back to China.”
In oral arguments last May when the Supreme Court first looked at Trump’s birthright citizenship order, many on the bench were skeptical of the Trump administration.
The government’s position “makes no sense whatsoever,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, saying it could leave some children “stateless.”
“So as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents,” added Sotomayor. “And you are claiming that not just the Supreme Court, that both the Supreme Court and no lower court can stop an executive from universally violating those holdings by this Court.”
“On the day after it goes into effect — it’s just a very practical question of how it’s going to work,” asked Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?” when it comes to determining citizenship on the birth certificate.
“I don’t think they do anything different,” replied Sauer. “What the executive order says in Section Two is that federal officials do not accept documents that have the wrong designation of citizenship from people who are subject to the executive order.”
“How are they going to know that?” asked Kavanaugh, shaking his head.
The case is Trump v. Barbara (25-365), a pseudonym for a Honduran citizen who fears for her and her family’s safety. Her child was born in the U.S. in October, months after she joined the lawsuit as the named plaintiff.
Shannon Bream currently serves as anchor of FOX News Sunday. She joined the network in 2007 as a Washington, D.C- based correspondent covering the Supreme Court.
