The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments on May 15 in a landmark case challenging former President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to end birthright citizenship for most individuals born in the United States.
While the Court denied the Trump administration’s request to immediately enforce the policy, its decision to take up the case marks a significant and potentially historic moment. The administration characterized the appeal as a “modest” effort to limit the scope of lower court rulings, but a decision in Trump’s favor could revive a policy previously deemed “blatantly unconstitutional” by several federal courts.
At the heart of the case is a procedural question with far-reaching implications: whether federal district courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions—orders that block government actions beyond the specific parties involved in a case.
“This administration is trying to use a procedural issue to activate a policy that many view as unconstitutional across nearly the entire country,” said Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court analyst and law professor at Georgetown University. “It would be stunning if the justices resolved this through a case with such high political stakes.”
Trump made ending birthright citizenship a centerpiece of his reelection campaign. Despite the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment—which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born or naturalized in the U.S.—Trump signed an executive order on his first day back in office seeking to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrant parents.
The executive order triggered a wave of legal challenges and nationwide injunctions. However, in its appeal, Trump’s legal team focused not on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself, but on limiting the reach of the judicial orders blocking the policy.
Legal precedent on the matter dates back to the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that birth within U.S. territory confers citizenship. While the current Court has not explicitly indicated a willingness to revisit that precedent, some conservative legal scholars argue that children of undocumented immigrants fall outside the 14th Amendment’s clause granting citizenship to those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
The Justice Department has criticized lower courts for issuing sweeping injunctions that affect individuals and states not directly involved in the lawsuits. On the other hand, opponents of the Trump policy argue that citizenship is a national issue that requires consistent application across all states.
Several federal courts moved swiftly to block the policy after Trump signed the executive order. A Reagan-appointed judge in Washington state issued a preliminary injunction, later upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case led by Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon.
Separately, a judge in Maryland appointed by President Biden issued a nationwide injunction, which was also upheld by the 4th Circuit. A third injunction was issued by a Massachusetts federal judge in a case brought by New Jersey and 17 other states.
Trump appealed all three cases to the Supreme Court on March 13. The outcome could not only determine the future of birthright citizenship
Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, on Thursday, April 17, 2025, convicted and sentenced businessman Aniogor Godswill Obiajulu and his company, ICE BY CW, to a total of five years’ imprisonment for refusing to accept the Naira as legal tender in a commercial transaction.
Obiajulu and his company were arraigned on a two-count charge relating to the rejection of the Naira and the unlawful acceptance of foreign currency.
Count One stated that on December 10, 2024, in Lagos, the defendants accepted $10,000 (Ten Thousand U.S. Dollars) as payment for a diamond Clover bracelet, in violation of Section 20(1) of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007, which mandates the acceptance of the Naira as legal tender in Nigeria.
Count Two alleged that the same $10,000, which the defendants retained, formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful act — specifically, the pricing and acceptance of USD for goods and services. This act contravenes Section 18(2)(d) and is punishable under Section 18(3) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
The defendant pleaded guilty to both charges.
In response, the prosecuting counsel, C.C. Okezie, presented key pieces of evidence including the receipt for the diamond bracelet dated December 10, 2024, the defendant’s statement from December 27, 2024, and the bracelet itself. He urged the court to convict the defendants accordingly.
Delivering judgment, Justice Aluko found both Obiajulu and ICE BY CW guilty. On the first count, they were each sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with an option of a ₦50,000 fine. On the second count, Obiajulu was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, with an option of a ₦1 million fine, while the company was also fined ₦1 million.
The court further ordered the forfeiture of the diamond Clover bracelet to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
The convictions stem from the defendants’ unlawful practice of pricing and accepting payment in U.S. Dollars for goods, a violation of Nigerian monetary and anti-money laundering laws.
