Within hours of his inauguration, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that would withhold U.S. citizenship from the children of some immigrants born in the United States, calling the order a “big one.” The executive order would end a right that the U.S. Constitution has guaranteed for more than 150 years. 

The policy was immediately challenged in court and has never gone into effect, though its final fate remains unsettled. 

In late June, the Supreme Court struck down the nationwide injunctions that were blocking the order, throwing expecting parents into a state of limbo as advocates rushed to find other avenues to keep the policy from going into effect.

Here are answers to the most pressing questions about Trump’s birthright citizen policy.

What is the status of birthright citizenship rights in the United States right now? 

On July 10, a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked Trump’s executive order from going into effect while the question of its legality moves ahead in court. 

Judge Joseph LaPlante said he would certify a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all children affected by the executive order and issue a temporary injunction blocking the order from taking effect. LaPlante ruled that allowing the Trump administration to implement its policy would cause irreparable harm to the children denied U.S. citizenship. 

LaPlante gave the Trump administration seven days to challenge the ruling in federal appeals court. If that court doesn’t intervene, LaPlante’s ruling will go into effect next week, ahead of July 27, when Trump’s executive order takes effect in the 28 states that haven’t challenged it. Those states are led by Republican attorneys general who did not sue to block the order. 

What does this mean for immigrant parents expecting children or planning to grow their families? 

Right now, the children of immigrants born in the United States are automatically granted U.S. citizenship, regardless of their parents’ legal status to be in the country. (The law has some small exceptions, including children of foreign diplomats.) 

The recent ruling out of New Hampshire temporarily protects the right of children born to immigrants on U.S. soil to receive a U.S. birth certificate, a Social Security Number and U.S. passport — along with all of the benefits of citizenship.

Parents targeted by Trump’s executive order, including mothers without permanent immigration status, should know that birthright citizenship rights are so far protected by only temporary rulings. 

The Trump administration remains committed to its policy of ending birthright citizenship. 

What does Trump’s executive order say, and who would be impacted if it goes into effect? 

Trump’s executive order, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” would exclude two categories of infants from the right to U.S. citizenship: infants born to a mother who is unlawfully in the country and a father who is not a citizen or permanent resident, and infants born to a mother who is authorized to be in the country for a temporary period of time and a father who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. 

The latter group includes people in the United States legally, including those with a work, student or tourist visa, or other form of temporary immigration status. 

It’s unclear how it would apply to the children of LGBTQ+ couples or single moms since the order goes on to define mother and father as male and female “biological progenitors.”  The order directs federal agencies to deprive these newborn babies of legal documents such as Social Security cards and U.S. passports.

If the order goes into effect, how many potential babies stand to be impacted? 

An analysis by the Migration Policy Institute and Penn States Population Research Institute estimates that about 255,000 children would be born without U.S. citizenship each year if Trump’s order goes into effect. 

Within 20 years, the policy would increase the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the country by 2.7 million. By 2075, that number would rise to 5.4 million. 

Some children of immigrant parents have no way to establish citizenship in their parents’ home countries. The policy would leave these children stateless.

What did the Supreme Court rule? 

The U.S. Supreme Court has not formally weighed in on whether Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship violates the U.S. Constitution. 

The court instead took up a case brought forward by the Trump administration, which argued that the nationwide injunctions that blocked the order were too broad and allowed a single judge to block the president from carrying out their agenda. 

In a 6-3 ruling authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices ruled that “federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch.” The ruling left the door open for class-action lawsuits, a more complicated legal mechanism that enabled the ruling out of New Hampshire blocking the order nationwide.

Coney Barrett said the question of whether the order was constitutional was simply not before the court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, meanwhile, said that proving that the policy is legal would be “an impossible task in light of the Constitution’s text.”

What does the Constitution say about birthright citizenship?

The Constitution’s 14th Amendment states 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.”

The amendment was enshrined in the Constitution in 1868 as part of a decades-long effort by African Americans to end slavery and establish full citizenship rights for themselves and their children. 

The Supreme Court reaffirmed birthright citizenship in the 1898 landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which has been at the center of the arguments against Trump’s policy because it clarified that the children of immigrants are entitled to birthright citizenship. 

In Wong Kim Ark, the justices ruled that a man who was born in California to parents who were Chinese citizens was entitled to U.S. citizenship.

What is the Trump administration’s argument?  

Trump’s Justice Department has argued that a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, specifically the line that says “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” allows the administration to exclude newborns who it doesn’t consider under its jurisdiction. 

When will the legality of Trump’s executive order be settled once and for all? 

It’s not clear yet as several cases challenging the order itself are making their way through the courts. 

Last month, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the White House expects the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of the executive order by the fall. “Birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court,” Bondi said. “We’re very confident in the Supreme Court.”

Candice Norwood contributed to this report.