Notre Dame Professor Joins Fight Against Trump’s Attack on Birthright Citizenship

President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship through executive order has sparked a legal battle drawing in top social scientists, including Notre Dame professor Amy Hsin. Hsin, alongside nine other experts and over 100 immigration scholars, has submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court challenging the order’s legality and highlighting its dire consequences.

The executive order targets automatic citizenship for children born on US soil if their parents are undocumented or hold temporary visas like student status. Hsin explains that this would effectively strip citizenship from about one in every eighteen children born in the United States going forward, punishing them for their parents’ immigration status. These children would grow up undocumented, facing barriers that affect their access to education, employment, and basic rights.

Research compiled in the brief surveys decades of social science on birthright citizenship’s impact, revealing that revoking it would worsen poverty, harm mental health, and erode a sense of belonging. It would also increase the undocumented population, creating a permanent underclass with limited paths to citizenship or legal status.

The brief, led by University of California Berkeley professor Caitlin Patler, builds on prior advocacy efforts from the first Trump administration, including work on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Hsin emphasizes the importance of translating academic research into real-world policy debates, hoping the court will consider the social science evidence in its decision.

Legal expert Rick Garnett notes that while amicus briefs do not guarantee influence, they offer courts valuable perspectives beyond the parties involved. This growing coalition of scholars aims to ensure the Supreme Court understands the human and societal stakes involved in this attack on a foundational constitutional right.

As the Trump administration pushes authoritarian overreach by bypassing Congress and dismantling civil rights protections, this case stands as a critical front in the fight to preserve democratic norms and protect vulnerable children from becoming collateral damage in a political power grab.