The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to examine the legality of President Donald Trump's directive regarding birthright citizenship. This decision comes as part of Trump's broader immigration policy, which aims to restrict citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are not American citizens or legal residents. The justices will hear an appeal from the Trump administration following a lower court's ruling that blocked the executive order. The case is set to be argued in the spring, with a ruling expected by early summer.

Trump signed the birthright citizenship order on January 20, the first day of his second term. This order is part of a series of initiatives aimed at tightening immigration controls, which also include increased enforcement in various cities and the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act.

The Supreme Court's decision to take up this case marks the first time a Trump immigration policy will receive a final ruling from the court. The order challenges over 125 years of understanding regarding the 14th Amendment, which has traditionally granted citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, with limited exceptions.

Lower courts have consistently ruled against the executive order, stating it likely violates the 14th Amendment. This amendment was established to ensure citizenship for all individuals born in the U.S., including those born to undocumented immigrants. The Supreme Court has previously limited the use of nationwide injunctions but did not address the constitutionality of Trump's order.

The case originated in New Hampshire, where a federal judge blocked the citizenship order in a class-action lawsuit involving children affected by the directive. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is leading the legal challenge against the order. ACLU's national legal director, Cecillia Wang, emphasized that "no president can change the 14th Amendment's fundamental promise of citizenship."

The Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment does not extend citizenship to children of noncitizens who are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. They contend that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" implies that citizenship is only granted to those whose primary allegiance is to the United States. This interpretation has been met with significant legal opposition, as challengers cite a historical Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizen parents.

The administration's stance has garnered support from 24 Republican-led states and numerous Republican lawmakers, who argue that the current interpretation of birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration and "birth tourism."

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear this case, the implications of its ruling could have lasting effects on immigration policy and the interpretation of citizenship rights in the United States.