The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case that could limit or eliminate birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. The case stems from an executive order by President Donald Trump that would restrict automatic citizenship for children born to unauthorized or temporary legal immigrants. Lower courts have temporarily blocked the order.
The Court's decision could have significant implications for millions of children regarding access to healthcare, education, social services, and legal documentation.
Background on Birthright Citizenship
Birthright citizenship is established under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, and grants citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil. This right was affirmed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The Trump administration has argued that birthright citizenship has been applied too broadly to children of non-citizens.
If the right is removed for children born on or after February 20, 2025, projections from the Migration Policy Institute and Penn State University estimate that approximately 255,000 U.S.-born children could begin life without U.S. citizenship annually, potentially reaching 4.8 million by 2045. In 2023, an estimated 320,000 babies were born to unauthorized or temporary legal immigrants.
Healthcare and Social Services Access
Newborn Care and Documentation
Under current law, a baby born in a U.S. hospital or birth center automatically becomes a citizen and receives a Social Security number. This number is required for enrollment in health insurance, food benefits, and other support programs. Approximately half of U.S.-born children are enrolled in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
If birthright citizenship were eliminated, hospitals would need to verify each newborn's citizenship status to obtain a Social Security number, potentially causing administrative delays. Newborns undergo critical medical screenings in their first days of life, including jaundice screening, pulse oximetry for heart defects, and a heel prick test for serious conditions. Delays in these tests could affect early intervention for treatable conditions.
All parents would be required to establish their own citizenship status through a new bureaucratic process to secure benefits and services for their children. According to a brief filed by First Focus on Children, over 21 million Americans lack ready access to documents proving citizenship.
Medicaid and Health Coverage
Pregnant women are eligible for Medicaid coverage across all states, irrespective of immigration status, covering prenatal, birth, and postnatal care. Medicaid accounts for 40% of all births in the U.S. Health coverage during pregnancy is linked to health outcomes for babies, who then automatically qualify for Medicaid for their first year.
If birthright citizenship is eliminated, U.S.-born children who would otherwise be citizens might no longer qualify for Medicaid.
Bruce Lesley, president of First Focus on Children, stated that the focus on allegiance overlooks potential harm to babies and possible chaos in the health system. Dr. Kim Avila, a Texas pediatrician and member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Federal Government Affairs, stated that any administrative burden that slows the current system could put children's health at risk.
Food and Nutrition Programs
Social Security numbers are also required for enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Bruce Lesley suggested that a change could disrupt continuity of care and potentially jeopardize access to these programs during a child's most vulnerable period.
Education Access
K-12 Public Education
All children, regardless of immigration status, possess the right to a free K-12 public education in the United States. This right was upheld by the 1982 Supreme Court ruling Plyler v. Doe, which addressed Texas's attempt to prohibit state funding for educating children living in the country without legal status. The Court recognized that denying a basic K-12 education could create a permanent underclass.
As a result of Plyler, school districts are not mandated to collect immigration data on students or their families. However, organizations such as the National Newcomer Network, co-founded by Alejandra Vázquez Baur, have expressed concern that Plyler has become a target for political challenges. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has advocated for states to restrict public education for undocumented students and to directly challenge the Plyler decision, citing state education spending costs.
Some states, including Tennessee, are considering legislation that would track K-12 students' legal status and allow public schools to refuse enrollment to undocumented students. Similar proposals are under consideration in other states.
Impact of Immigration Enforcement on School Attendance
Immigration enforcement efforts have been linked to declines in school attendance. Increased federal immigration presence in Minnesota led to a 20-40% rise in absences in some districts. A study by the Hoover Institution found a 22% increase in absences in California's Central Valley after immigration raids. Studies suggest a rise in local immigration enforcement can lead to fewer Hispanic students enrolling, potentially disrupting their education and impacting school funding, which often relies on attendance and enrollment.
Students with Disabilities and Public Services
Schools often serve as the initial point of contact for immigrant families seeking public services such as nutrition programs, healthcare, language learning, and counseling. They are also crucial for identifying children's disabilities and connecting them with support services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which guarantees disabled children a "Free Appropriate Public Education."
Anne Dwyer, a professor at Georgetown University, stated that these protections are not contingent on immigration status. Schools utilize state and federal Medicaid funds for services like physical, speech, and occupational therapy, covering approximately half of all students with special education plans. Medicaid is generally restricted to U.S. citizens and individuals with other qualifying legal statuses.
If birthright citizenship is eliminated, U.S.-born children who would otherwise be citizens might no longer qualify for Medicaid. While schools would remain legally obligated to serve disabled children under IDEA, they would need to secure alternative funding.
Higher Education Access
Unlike K-12 education, the right to higher education is not universally guaranteed regardless of immigration status. Students without legal status can enroll in college but are ineligible for federal financial aid, including federal student loans and Pell Grants. Some states, such as Georgia and Alabama, prohibit undocumented students from attending specific public colleges, while others charge them out-of-state tuition rates.
Citizenship Documentation Challenges
Hannah Steinberg, a staff attorney at the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project, noted that establishing citizenship could be difficult and costly, particularly for children with unknown fathers (approximately 10% of birth certificates), found babies, or those born to same-sex couples, surrogates, or through assisted reproductive technology. Even U.S. citizen parents could face challenges if documents were lost.
Demographic Considerations
Arturo Vargas Bustamante, director of faculty research at the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute, indicated that the debate and existing immigration policies are already affecting maternal and infant health. Fear can lead to decreased prenatal care, increasing the likelihood of health issues like low birth weight. Data from the UCLA institute indicates that 75% of children of noncitizen parents are Latino.
Expert Statements
Bruce Lesley, president of First Focus on Children, a bipartisan advocacy group, submitted an amicus brief for the Supreme Court case. Lesley observed that discussions in Congressional hearings on potentially ending birthright citizenship often focus on administrative, historical, and political aspects, without addressing direct impacts on children.