Any child born on U.S. soil has been entitled to citizenship since the 14th Amendment in 1868, a principle reaffirmed by the Supreme Court 128 years ago. The high court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case that could narrow or eliminate birthright citizenship.
The Trump administration has argued that the “privilege” of birthright citizenship has been applied too broadly to children of noncitizens. “Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn’t meant for that reason,” President Trump said last year.
If the court narrows or ends this protection, the change would apply to children born on or after Feb. 20, 2025. A projection from the Migration Policy Institute and Penn State estimates roughly 255,000 U.S.-born children could begin life without U.S. citizenship each year, growing to about 4.8 million children by 2045.
“Birthright citizenship is fundamental for child wellbeing,” says Wendy Cervantes of the Center for Law and Social Policy. She and others note that citizenship helps ensure children in the U.S. begin life with basic equal footing and opportunity. Much of that footing comes through K-12 public schools, which not only teach but connect children to services such as free meals, mental health supports and services for students with disabilities. Removing birthright citizenship could complicate access to those services and to college.
Public schools can’t turn students away because of immigration status
All children, regardless of immigration status, currently have the right to a free K-12 public education in the United States, a right affirmed in the 1982 Supreme Court ruling Plyler v. Doe. That case blocked Texas from denying state education funding to children living in the U.S. unlawfully and prevented charging them tuition.
In Plyler, the court recognized that denying a basic education to children would create a “permanent underclass.” As a result, school districts are generally discouraged from collecting families’ immigration data. But advocates worry Plyler is politically vulnerable.
Conservative groups and policy proposals tied to Project 2025 have urged states to restrict public education for undocumented students or otherwise challenge Plyler, arguing such measures would preserve taxpayer resources. Some state lawmakers are already proposing bills to track students’ legal status and allow schools to refuse enrollment to undocumented students. If such laws are enacted, they would likely prompt legal challenges that could reopen the question of whether immigrant children have a constitutional right to public education.
A right to education doesn’t assure families feel safe sending their kids to school
Immigration enforcement can already reduce school attendance. After an increased federal immigration presence in parts of Minnesota, some districts reported 20–40% increases in absences. Research also shows a 22% increase in absences in California’s Central Valley after immigration raids. Those trends predate this administration and illustrate how enforcement around schools disrupts education.
Experts say the mere threat or possibility of losing birthright citizenship would heighten fear, anxiety and stress in immigrant communities, compounding attendance declines. When enforcement rises locally, fewer Hispanic students enroll in nearby schools, which can further disrupt learning and reduce school funding, since many districts receive money based on daily attendance and overall enrollment. That pressure comes as many districts are already experiencing enrollment declines.
Students with disabilities could fall through the cracks
Public schools often serve as a primary entry point for immigrant families to access nutrition, health care, language supports and counseling. They are also commonly where children’s disabilities are first identified and where services required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are delivered. IDEA guarantees all disabled children a Free Appropriate Public Education.
But many school-based special education services are funded or supplemented by Medicaid. Medicaid covers about half of students who have special education plans and contributes billions annually to school-based services. Medicaid is generally limited to U.S. citizens and qualifying legal residents; if birthright citizenship were eliminated, U.S.-born children who would previously have been citizens might no longer qualify for Medicaid. Schools would still be legally obligated under IDEA to serve eligible students, but losing Medicaid reimbursement would create major budgetary gaps and force districts—many already financially strained—to find new funding or reduce services.
Paying for higher education would get much harder
K-12 public education is protected for all children, but higher education is not. Undocumented students can sometimes enroll in college, but they are ineligible for federal student aid like Pell Grants and federal loans, which are critical for many low-income students. Some states also restrict undocumented students’ access to certain public colleges or impose out-of-state tuition.
Research shows U.S. citizenship is linked to opportunities that raise educational attainment and later economic contributions. Narrowing or eliminating birthright citizenship could push large numbers of children into a long-term disadvantaged status—reducing their ability to afford and complete college and creating ripple effects across generations. Scholars warn that this could produce a caste-like group whose prospects are limited by immigration status rather than potential.
Credits
Edited by Nicole Cohen
Visual design and development by LA Johnson
