Introduction

With the Supreme Court of the United States poised to issue a decision in the coming weeks on the constitutionality of Executive Order 14160, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll released on April 26, 2026, finds that a clear majority of Americans oppose President Donald Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship. The findings arrive at a pivotal moment for U.S. immigration law, with the Court widely expected to rule on the merits in Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365, before its term concludes at the end of June.

The Reuters/Ipsos Poll Findings

The nationwide Reuters/Ipsos survey, conducted from April 15 through April 20, 2026, among 4,557 U.S. adults, reports that 64 percent of respondents oppose ending birthright citizenship while 32 percent support scrapping it. The poll documents a sharp partisan split: only 9 percent of Democrats support eliminating birthright citizenship, while Republican respondents are themselves divided—with 62 percent in favor of ending the practice and 36 percent in favor of preserving it.

The poll also captures public attitudes on several other matters now pending before the Supreme Court, including state restrictions on transgender athletes in school sports and rules governing the counting of mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day. Of immediate relevance to immigration practitioners, however, is what the survey reflects about the political and cultural backdrop against which the Justices will decide the citizenship question.

The Underlying Litigation: Trump v. Barbara

On January 20, 2025, his first day in office for a second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (Jan. 29, 2025). Section 2 of the order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize as U.S. citizens children born in the United States in two categories: (1) children whose mother was unlawfully present at the time of birth and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident; and (2) children whose mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary (such as on a student, work, or tourist visa, or under the Visa Waiver Program) and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth.

Multiple federal district courts swiftly enjoined enforcement of the Executive Order, holding that the directive is in plain conflict with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and well over a century of binding Supreme Court precedent. The Government sought relief at the Supreme Court not on the merits of the citizenship question itself, but on the scope of the universal injunctions issued below.

On June 27, 2025, in Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. _ (2025), the Supreme Court held 6–3 that federal district courts generally lack authority to issue “universal” injunctions extending relief beyond the named plaintiffs, leaving open the use of class-wide injunctions and APA-based remedies. The same day, plaintiffs represented by the American Civil Liberties Union filed a putative class action in the District of New Hampshire, Barbara v. Trump, seeking certification of a nationwide class of children covered by the Executive Order. Judge Joseph N. Laplante certified the class and issued a class-wide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement. The Government’s petition for certiorari before judgment followed, and on December 5, 2025, the Court granted review on the merits of the constitutional question.

Oral Argument: April 1, 2026

The Court heard oral argument in Trump v. Barbara on April 1, 2026. President Trump attended in person—reportedly the first sitting President to attend Supreme Court oral argument in the official records. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued for the United States, defending an interpretation under which the Citizenship Clause’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would limit birthright citizenship to children of parents lawfully “domiciled” in the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union’s National Legal Director Cecillia Wang argued for the respondents.

Press accounts and contemporaneous analysis from observers including SCOTUS blog suggest that a majority of the Court appeared skeptical of the Government’s position. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, among others, pressed the Solicitor General on the consequences of the proposed “lawful domicile” test—particularly its implications for groups historically understood to fall within the Clause, such as Native Americans whose citizenship was confirmed by Congress in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. The Court appeared unlikely to side with the Government, although a final ruling has not yet issued.

Constitutional and Statutory Framework

The constitutional question arises under the first sentence of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, which provides that “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.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Congress codified that command in nearly identical terms at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which confers nationality and citizenship at birth on “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The governing precedent is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), in which the Supreme Court held that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents lawfully residing in the United States was a citizen at birth notwithstanding his parents’ inability to naturalize. The Wong Kim Ark Court grounded its holding in the common-law principle of jus soli—citizenship by place of birth—understood, as the Court explained, to extend to all children born within the territory and under the protection of the United States, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats, members of hostile occupying forces, and others not subject to U.S. sovereign authority.

The Citizenship Clause was itself adopted to overrule Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), and to ensure that emancipated persons and their descendants would never again be denied citizenship by judicial or executive fiat. That history is central to the respondents’ argument that the Executive Order’s textual gloss on “jurisdiction” cannot be reconciled with the Clause’s purpose.

Practical Implications for Practitioners and Affected Families

Until the Supreme Court rules, Executive Order 14160 remains enjoined as to the certified class in Barbara and is not in force. The Department of State, the Social Security Administration, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services have published implementation plans that would take effect only if and when the injunctions are lifted, and only thirty days after the underlying order becomes effective.

In the meantime, our office continues to advise the following:

  • Children born in the United States on or after February 19, 2025, remain U.S. citizens at birth under existing law, and U.S. birth certificates remain sufficient evidence of citizenship for passport, Social Security, and other federal purposes.
  • Parents in nonimmigrant status (including F-1, H-1B, B-1/B-2, TPS, and asylum-pending cases) who give birth in the United States should obtain a state-issued birth certificate in the ordinary course and apply for the child’s U.S. passport and Social Security number without delay.
  • Families whose status or membership in the certified class may be uncertain—particularly those whose children may be born close to or after a hypothetical effective date of the Executive Order—should consult counsel about contingency planning, including documentary preservation of parental status at the time of birth.
  • Practitioners with clients in pending removal, asylum, or adjustment proceedings should be alert to the possibility that the Court’s decision—whatever its outcome—may affect collateral immigration consequences for U.S.-citizen children, including derivative claims and protection from removal of accompanying parents.

Outlook

The Reuters/Ipsos poll is, of course, not law; the Justices will decide Trump v. Barbara on the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment, the controlling decisions of the Supreme Court, and the implementing statute. But the depth of public opposition to the Executive Order—paired with the tenor of the April 1 argument—reinforces the view of every lower federal court to have considered the question: that the Citizenship Clause means what it has long been understood to mean, and that birthright citizenship is not a policy that can be undone by executive order.

A decision is expected by the end of June 2026. The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC will continue to provide updates on this matter and on the broader Supreme Court immigration docket as rulings are handed down.

Constitutional and Statutory Authority

  • U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (Citizenship Clause).
  • Immigration and Nationality Act § 301, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (statutory codification of birthright citizenship).
  • Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(b).
  • Executive Order 14160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (Jan. 29, 2025).

Controlling and Related Case Law

  • United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (children born in the United States to noncitizen parents are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment).
  • Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) (overruled by the Fourteenth Amendment).
  • Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. _ (June 27, 2025) (limiting universal injunctions; not reaching the merits of the Executive Order).
  • Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365 (U.S., argued Apr. 1, 2026) (merits review of Executive Order 14160; decision pending).
  • Barbara v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-244 (D.N.H. 2025) (Laplante, J.) (class certification and class-wide preliminary injunction).
  • CASA, Inc. v. Trump, No. 8:25-cv-00201 (D. Md. 2025) (Boardman, J.) (preliminary injunction; companion case).
  • Washington v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-00127 (W.D. Wash. 2025) (Coughenour, J.) (preliminary injunction in state-led challenge).

Agency Implementation Materials

  • U.S. Dep’t of State, Implementation Plan for Executive Order 14160 (currently not in effect).
  • U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., Implementation Plan of Executive Order 14160 (Office of the Director, 2025).
  • Soc. Sec. Admin., Guidance on Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship (July 2025).

Legislative Materials

  • Born in the USA Act of 2025, H.R. 3368, 119th Cong. (2025) (proposing to prohibit appropriations to carry out Executive Order 14160).

Polling and Public-Opinion Source

  • Reuters/Ipsos, Survey on Birthright Citizenship and Pending Supreme Court Matters (conducted Apr. 15–20, 2026; n = 4,557 U.S. adults; reported by Reuters, Apr. 26, 2026).

Selected Related Coverage on myattorneyusa.com

  • Articles in our Birthright Citizenship and Fourteenth Amendment series.
  • Articles on Executive Order 14160 and the litigation in CASA, Washington, and the District of New Hampshire.
  • Articles on the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. and the use of universal and class-wide injunctions in immigration litigation.
  • Articles on the practical effect of pending Supreme Court immigration cases on asylum, adjustment of status, and removal proceedings.