Citizenship and deportation disputes bring executive power into court

A new order changes what federal agencies are told to recognize

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14160 directing federal agencies to deny birthright citizenship to certain children born in the United States to parents who lacked permanent immigration status. Administration lawyers argued that the Fourteenth Amendment’s phrase about being subject to United States jurisdiction allowed a narrower interpretation. Families expecting children, state officials and civil-rights organizations challenged the directive. For a newborn, the dispute concerned more than a political label: citizenship affects a birth certificate, a Social Security number and the child’s future legal status.

Federal courts blocked the order while litigation advanced. In June 2025, the Supreme Court addressed the reach of nationwide injunctions in a related proceeding but did not then resolve the order’s underlying constitutionality. On June 30, 2026, the justices decided Trump v. Barbara. By a 6–3 vote, the Court held that the directive violated the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. Dissenting justices disagreed about the constitutional requirement. The decision left birthright citizenship in place for children born in the United States to parents present unlawfully or temporarily, subject to recognized narrow exceptions.

A separate deportation exposes the human cost of error

A different enforcement case concerned Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man living in Maryland. In March 2025, the administration deported him to El Salvador despite an earlier legal protection against removal to that country. Officials acknowledged the deportation was mistaken. Litigation followed over what the government was required to do to facilitate his return. In June, he was brought back to the United States and charged with transporting migrants unlawfully. The charges were allegations to be decided through criminal proceedings; they did not erase the earlier deportation error.

Officials defended the administration’s broader push to remove people they said lacked legal status or posed risks to the public. Lawyers challenging individual removals pressed the opposite point: an enforcement objective does not make a mistaken removal lawful or extinguish a person’s right to a fair process. American citizens had their own stake. A government that must check identity, citizenship and judicial orders before acting is less likely to wrongly target someone entitled to remain.

Courts decide the particular legal questions

The citizenship case involved interpretation of the Constitution. The deportation case involved government compliance with court orders, immigration protections and later criminal allegations. Those are different disputes, although both put officials under judicial scrutiny. By November 2026, the June Supreme Court citizenship ruling was settled law, while individual removal cases continued to turn on their particular records.