WASHINGTON (AP) \u2014 One of the first things an Argentine emigre did after her son was born in Florida last year was get him a U.S. passport.<\/p>\n
She saw the passport as tangible evidence that he\u2019s an American. But now people like her are in a legal fight over President Donald Trump\u2019s executive order<\/a> that would deny U.S. citizenship<\/a> to children born in the United States to people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. <\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s funny because I actually booked him for his passport application appointment even before he was born,\u201d the 28-year-old woman said, as her now 7-month-old son napped nearby. She spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity, insisted upon by her lawyers, out of fear of possible retribution by the Republican administration if she were publicly identified.<\/p>\n \u201cI would say that I am definitely relieved that at least he is protected,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court<\/a> is hearing arguments on Wednesday over whether Trump\u2019s order, signed on Jan. 20, 2025, his first day back in office, comports with the post-Civil War 14th Amendment<\/a> and an 86-year-old federal law that has been widely understood<\/a> to make citizens of everyone born in the country, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and invading armies. Every court to have considered the issue has found the order to be illegal and prevented it from taking effect.<\/p>\n The call to repeal birthright citizenship is part of the Trump administration\u2019s broader crackdown on immigrants that has included stepped-up deportations, drastic reductions in the number of refugees allowed into the U.S., suspension of asylum at the border and stripping temporary legal protections from people fleeing political and economic instability.<\/p>\n The case presents another test for a high court that has allowed some anti-immigration efforts to continue, even after lower courts had blocked them. The case before the court comes from New Hampshire, where U.S. District Judge Joseph N. LaPlante ruled that the order \u201clikely violates\u201d both the Constitution and federal law.<\/p>\n Constitution vs. executive order<\/p>\n The first sentence of the 14th Amendment, the Citizenship Clause, makes citizens of \u201call persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.\u201d The case turns on the meaning of the final phrase about jurisdiction, which also was used in citizenship laws enacted in 1940 and 1952.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s view, asserted in the order titled \u201cProtecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship\u201d and backed by some conservative legal scholars, is that people here illegally or temporarily are not \u201csubject to the jurisdiction\u201d of the United States and therefore their U.S.-born children are not entitled to citizenship.<\/p>\n The court should use the case to set straight \u201clong-enduring misconceptions about the Constitution\u2019s meaning,\u201d Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. <\/p>\n In that regard, Sauer likened the case to the seminal 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed segregation in public schools, and the landmark 2008 Heller case, which declared that people have a constitutional right to keep guns for self-defense. <\/p>\n Last year, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the Trump administration\u2019s effort to defend the order \u201can impossible task in light of the Constitution\u2019s text, history, this Court\u2019s precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice.\u201d <\/p>\n