Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365) — birthright citizenship EO struck down

Thesis

1. 1.EO 14160 attempts to deny birthright citizenship to children of unauthorized immigrants and certain temporary visa holders by executive order — a fundamental challenge to the 14th Amendment's plain text.
2. 2.14th Amendment §1: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' The text is plain on its face.
3. 3.United States v Wong Kim Ark (1898) is 128-year-old controlling precedent that explicitly rejected the 'subject to the jurisdiction' reading the EO requires — held that a child born in San Francisco to non-citizen Chinese parents was a US citizen at birth.
4. 4.Lower courts unanimously enjoined the EO: 9th Circuit (Trump v Washington), 4th Circuit (Trump v Casa), 1st Circuit (Trump v Doe) — no circuit split for the government to leverage.
5. 5.Argued April 1 2026 with hostile questioning from Roberts and Kavanaugh on the textualist case against the EO — oral-argument signals strongly suggest the conservative majority is unwilling to read 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as the EO requires.
6. 6.Government would need the Court to read 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as excluding undocumented immigrants — a reading Wong Kim Ark already rejected. Originalist conservatives (Gorsuch, Thomas) typically defer to historical reading that supports broad citizenship.
7. 7.Probable vote: 7-2 or 8-1 against the EO (Alito + potentially Thomas in dissent). Risk that Court rules narrowly on procedural grounds without reaching merits — would not technically 'strike down' but would defer the EO indefinitely.
8. 8.78% EHIQ probability reflects: strong textualist precedent + unanimous lower-court rulings + hostile oral-argument signals. Range 72-85% acknowledges procedural-ruling tail risk.