Since the 14th Amendment in 1868, children born in the United States have generally been granted citizenship — a principle reinforced by the Supreme Court more than a century ago. Now the high court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case that could limit or eliminate birthright citizenship for some children born on U.S. soil.
The Trump administration has argued that 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 the 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 each year could begin life without U.S. citizenship, growing to about 4.8 million children by 2045.
Advocates warn that citizenship is fundamental to child wellbeing. “Birthright citizenship is fundamental for child wellbeing,” says Wendy Cervantes of the Center for Law and Social Policy. Citizenship helps ensure children start life with basic equal footing and access to opportunities. Much of that footing is delivered through public K-12 schools, which not only provide instruction but also connect students to free meals, mental health supports, language services and special education. Altering birthright citizenship could complicate access to those services and make it harder for affected children to pursue college.
Public K-12 education and Plyler v. Doe
All children in the U.S., regardless of immigration status, currently have the right to a free public K-12 education, a right affirmed in the 1982 Supreme Court decision Plyler v. Doe. That ruling blocked Texas from denying state education funding to children living in the U.S. unlawfully and prevented schools from charging them tuition. In Plyler, the court warned that denying a basic education to children would create a “permanent underclass.” Because of that decision, school districts are generally discouraged from collecting families’ immigration status.
But advocates worry Plyler could become politically or legally vulnerable. Conservative groups and proposals connected to Project 2025 have urged states to restrict public education for undocumented students or otherwise challenge the Plyler ruling, arguing those steps would conserve taxpayer resources. Some state lawmakers are already proposing bills that would require schools to track students’ legal status or allow districts to deny enrollment to undocumented children. If such laws pass, they would likely trigger legal challenges that could reopen whether immigrant children have a constitutional right to public education.
Safety, attendance and the chilling effect
Even where the right to attend school exists, immigration enforcement and fear of enforcement already disrupt attendance. After an increased federal immigration presence in parts of Minnesota, some districts reported 20–40% increases in absences. Research also found a 22% increase in absences in California’s Central Valley following immigration raids. Those declines predate the current administration and demonstrate how enforcement actions around schools can interrupt learning.
Experts say merely threatening to remove birthright citizenship would increase fear, anxiety and stress in immigrant communities, likely worsening attendance declines. When enforcement rises locally, fewer Hispanic students enroll in nearby schools, further reducing funding for districts that rely on daily attendance and enrollment counts. Those financial pressures come as many districts are already facing enrollment declines for other reasons.
Impacts on students with disabilities
Public schools are often the primary way immigrant families access nutrition, health care, language supports and counseling. They are also where many children’s disabilities are identified and where services required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are delivered. IDEA guarantees that eligible children receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).
A large share of school-based special education services is funded or supplemented by Medicaid: about half of students with special education plans receive Medicaid-funded services, and Medicaid contributes billions to school-based care. Because Medicaid eligibility is generally tied to U.S. citizenship or qualifying lawful status, eliminating birthright citizenship could leave some U.S.-born children ineligible for Medicaid. Schools would remain legally obligated under IDEA to serve eligible students, but the loss of Medicaid reimbursement would create major budget shortfalls and could force already strained districts to cut services or find new funding sources.
Higher education and long-term consequences
K-12 public education is legally protected for all children, but higher education is not. Undocumented students can sometimes enroll in college, but they are ineligible for federal student aid such as Pell Grants and federal loans, which are essential for many low-income students. Some states also limit undocumented students’ access to certain public colleges or charge out-of-state tuition.
Research links U.S. citizenship to higher educational attainment and greater economic contribution over a lifetime. Narrowing or eliminating birthright citizenship could push hundreds of thousands of children into long-term disadvantaged status, reducing their ability to afford and complete college and creating ripple effects across generations. Scholars warn this could create a caste-like group whose opportunities are constrained by immigration status rather than potential.
What’s at stake
The stakes extend beyond legal status: changes to birthright citizenship could reshape how children and families interact with schools, access essential supports, and plan for the future. Policymakers, educators and advocates say the potential consequences for attendance, special education services, school budgets and college access are serious and would likely require significant policy responses at the state and local levels.
Credits
Edited by Nicole Cohen
Visual design and development by LA Johnson