The 14th Amendment has long been read to guarantee that most children born on U.S. soil are citizens, a principle the Supreme Court reaffirmed more than a century ago. The Court will hear arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case that could narrow or even eliminate that interpretation of birthright citizenship. The Trump administration contends that the provision has been applied too broadly to children of noncitizen parents. If the Court overturns or limits that protection, the change would be applied to births on or after Feb. 20, 2025. Researchers at the Migration Policy Institute and Penn State estimate that roughly 255,000 U.S.-born children could start life without U.S. citizenship each year under such a change, with that cohort growing to about 4.8 million by 2045.
Education advocates warn that birthright citizenship supports child wellbeing and equal opportunity, and much of that equality is delivered through public schools. K–12 districts do far more than teach academic subjects: they provide meals, counseling and mental-health supports, special education services, and other essential programs that help level the playing field. Reducing or ending birthright citizenship would complicate access to these services and could undermine pathways to college for large numbers of children.
K–12 access and Plyler v. Doe
All children currently have a constitutional right to a free public K–12 education under the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in Plyler v. Doe, which prohibits states from denying or charging tuition for basic schooling on the basis of immigration status. Because of Plyler, many school systems avoid gathering immigration-status information. But Plyler has come under political pressure: conservative organizations and some state lawmakers have pushed challenges, arguing for policies that would restrict schooling for undocumented children or identify students’ legal status. Several states, including Tennessee, have considered bills to require status tracking or to allow refusal of enrollment to students without particular documentation. Passage of such laws would almost certainly spur litigation and could reopen debates about immigrants’ educational rights.
Attendance, trust, and school funding
Even where enrollment rights remain intact, immigration enforcement and anti-immigrant climates can deter families from sending children to school. Districts that experienced intense enforcement actions have reported big spikes in absences—some Minnesota districts saw 20–40% increases; researchers documented a 22% drop in attendance in parts of California after raids. Fear and anxiety in immigrant communities reduce enrollment and daily attendance, and because many state school funding formulas tie resources to attendance or total enrollment, these declines translate into lost revenue for schools. That loss compounds existing budget pressures for districts already coping with declining enrollment.
Special education and Medicaid funding
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools must identify students with disabilities and provide a Free Appropriate Public Education to those eligible. Many districts rely heavily on Medicaid to pay for related services—physical, speech, and occupational therapies among them—and Medicaid helps support roughly half of students with special education plans, contributing billions to school budgets annually. Medicaid eligibility is generally tied to citizenship or specific legal statuses. If birthright citizenship is narrowed or eliminated, some U.S.-born children who would otherwise qualify for Medicaid could lose eligibility. While IDEA would still require schools to serve students who meet criteria, the loss of Medicaid reimbursements would force districts to replace that funding, stretching already tight budgets and increasing the risk of service gaps if families avoid enrollment or medical care.
Higher education access
Colleges and universities operate under different rules than K–12 systems. Undocumented students are often able to enroll at many institutions, but they are ineligible for federal student aid—Pell Grants, federal loans, and other assistance. Several states also limit enrollment or impose higher tuition on undocumented students. If birthright citizenship were curtailed, many U.S.-born students could lose access to federal aid and supports tied to citizenship, making college unaffordable for students who are already disproportionately low-income. Research links citizenship and legal status to educational attainment and long-term earnings; restricting birthright citizenship could therefore erect intergenerational barriers to mobility and economic participation.
Wider implications
A Supreme Court decision that narrows or ends birthright citizenship would have far-reaching effects beyond legal status. It could amplify fear in immigrant communities, reduce school enrollment and attendance, strain local education budgets, curtail access to health and therapeutic services provided through schools, and limit college opportunities. The cumulative effect could create a persistent, segregation-like divide in opportunity tied to immigration status, with long-term consequences for millions of children and for the communities and schools that serve them.