As the Supreme Court prepares to issue one of its most closely watched decisions of the year, legal scholars, immigration advocates, and political observers are anxiously awaiting a ruling that could redefine one of the most fundamental principles of American citizenship.

At the center of the growing anticipation is President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship—a policy that, if upheld, would mark one of the most significant changes to constitutional law in generations.

Now, one constitutional law professor is warning that recent actions by the Court suggest the outcome may be far less predictable than many once believed.

Speaking on the Pod Save America podcast, University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman said a series of recent Supreme Court immigration decisions has caused legal observers to reassess their expectations.

“The recent immigration decisions are really concerning,” Litman said.

According to her, the Court has recently embraced broader legal reasoning than was necessary to resolve several immigration disputes, raising new questions about how far the justices may be willing to go in future cases.

Those concerns now center on the upcoming birthright citizenship decision.

One of President Trump’s earliest executive orders during his second term sought to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to certain children born in the United States whose parents are in the country unlawfully or hold temporary immigration status.

The order immediately triggered legal challenges because it conflicts with more than a century of judicial interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.

For generations, courts have generally interpreted that constitutional provision to grant citizenship to nearly all people born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, subject to limited exceptions.

The Supreme Court’s decision could determine whether that longstanding interpretation remains intact.

Litman suggested that the Court’s delay in issuing its opinion may itself be significant.

“I think the delay could also signal that the decision isn’t going to be unanimous,” she said.

According to Litman, a deeply divided ruling could have consequences extending well beyond the immediate case.

She argued that any significant disagreement among the justices could reshape public understanding of constitutional protections surrounding citizenship and encourage future legal challenges.

Litman also raised broader questions about the long-term direction of the federal judiciary.

She wondered whether opposition to birthright citizenship could eventually become an important consideration for future Republican judicial nominees, comparing the possibility to the role abortion jurisprudence played in federal judicial selection before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Those comments reflect growing attention surrounding a decision widely expected before the Court begins its summer recess.

The anticipation has intensified following several recent immigration rulings in which the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration.

Among those decisions was an order allowing the administration to move forward with ending Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of Haitian immigrants and thousands of Syrian immigrants while legal challenges continue.

Supporters of the administration argue the president is acting within executive authority to strengthen immigration enforcement and restore what they view as the original meaning of constitutional and immigration law.

Opponents contend that the birthright citizenship order conflicts directly with the Fourteenth Amendment and longstanding Supreme Court precedent.

The legal questions involved reach well beyond immigration policy.

They touch on constitutional interpretation, executive authority, congressional power, and one of the most enduring guarantees in American law.

As a result, the forthcoming opinion is expected to become one of the defining constitutional rulings of the current Supreme Court term.

For now, however, the justices have revealed nothing about their final decision.

Whether the Court ultimately upholds, limits, or rejects the administration’s position remains unknown.

Until then, legal scholars, elected officials, immigration advocates, and millions of Americans continue waiting for a ruling that could shape the future of citizenship—and constitutional law—for decades to come.