The case centers on Trump’s order, signed after his return to the White House, which would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil to parents residing illegally or temporarily in the country.

Federal courts previously halted the measure, citing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the United States.

The administration argues that the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, was intended to secure citizenship rights for formerly enslaved people and does not extend to children of undocumented migrants or temporary visa holders.

In filings, Solicitor General John Sauer contended that eligibility for citizenship requires both birth in the United States and being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” a phrase the administration interprets narrowly.

Lower courts rejected that interpretation, relying on longstanding precedent, including the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed citizenship for a U.S.-born individual of foreign parents.Legal scholars cited in the proceedings said the court’s historical reliance on precedent may weigh against the administration’s position.

Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, said the court has traditionally looked to historical practice in constitutional interpretation.Trump confirmed he would attend the hearing, marking a rare instance of a sitting president observing oral arguments in a case involving their own administration.

While presidents have historically maintained distance from court proceedings, Trump has previously attended judicial ceremonies, including the 2017 investiture of Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The Supreme Court currently has a 6–3 conservative majority, with three justices appointed by Trump during his first term.The administration has argued that automatic citizenship for children of undocumented migrants acts as an incentive for illegal immigration and so-called “birth tourism.”

Opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said the policy would undermine constitutional protections and create uncertainty over the citizenship status of millions of Americans.

The case follows a separate setback for Trump in February, when the Supreme Court struck down much of his global tariff policy. Trump criticized that ruling and renewed his attack on judicial decisions ahead of the current hearing.

A decision on the birthright citizenship case is expected by late June or early July.

These amendments aren’t some grand conspiracy against Muslims—they’re a practical fix for a creaky system.

Across India, the 2025 amendments to the Waqf Act have stirred up a whirlwind of debate. Critics argue they’re a sneaky attempt to chip away at Muslim religious rights, fueling fears of disenfranchisement in places like Haryana—where Waqf properties pepper both city streets and rural fields—and beyond.

Some loud voices with their own agendas have turned up the volume on these claims. But if you peel back the layers, a different picture emerges. These changes aren’t about attacking faith; they’re about practical steps to modernize how Waqf properties are run, cut down on corruption, and stay true to the Islamic values of charity and justice at the heart of the Waqf system.

Let’s separate the rumors from the reality and look at what’s really happening—a push for efficiency and fairness that could benefit communities far beyond India.

One persistent misunderstanding is that Waqf administration is some untouchable religious domain, off-limits to practical reforms. Back in 1964, India’s Supreme Court put that idea to rest in a case called Tialkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj vs. State of Rajasthan. The ruling? Managing properties—whether they’re temples or Waqf holdings—is a secular job, not a spiritual one. The 2025 amendments take this to heart, aiming to streamline operations without meddling in religious freedoms.

In Haryana alone, Waqf properties include mosques, graveyards, and commercial spaces, while across India, 8.72 lakh properties cover a massive 38 lakh acres. Last year, these assets brought in just Rs. 166 crore, but the WAMSI portal estimates they could generate Rs. 12,000 crore. The amendments want to bridge that gap, channeling the profits to the poor and marginalized—exactly what Waqf is supposed to do.

Then there’s the notion that Waqf Boards are sacred institutions straight out of the Quran and Hadith, immune to any tinkering. The Kerala High Court in 1993 (Syed Fazal Pookoya Thangal vs. Union of India) cleared this up, pointing out that Waqf Boards are legal creations under the 1954 Waqf Act, designed to manage properties, not oversee religious life.

In Haryana, where mismanagement has left many Waqf assets idle, these changes tackle the problem head-on—think digitized records and stricter accountability—to live up to Islam’s call to support those in need.

The idea of adding non-Muslims to Waqf Boards—up to three out of eleven members in states like Haryana, or four out of twenty-two at the national level—has sparked accusations of religious interference. But rewind to 1965: the Allahabad High Court (Hafiz Mohamed Zafar Ahmed vs. UP Central Sunni Waqf Board) ruled that even non-Muslims can serve as Mutawallis (caretakers), since management isn’t about faith—it’s about competence.

Picture Haryana’s urban Waqf shops or rural lands: bringing in non-Muslim experts in law or administration could root out corruption without touching religious principles. Look at history—non-Muslim-led efforts like the Sachar Committee and Rangnath Misra Commission have delivered real benefits for Muslim communities. This is about professionalism, not overreach.

Some worry that mosques, madrasas, or graveyards—like those in Haryana’s Mewat region—are at risk. That’s simply not true. The amendments apply moving forward and safeguard already registered properties. ‘Waqf by User’ sites—places recognized as Waqf through long-term use—are secure, backed by Islamic teachings in Sur-e-Baqra about honoring written commitments (think Nikahnama). The 2013 rule allowing “any person” to dedicate Waqf is gone, ensuring only Muslim owners can do so, which aligns with Islamic tradition. As for Waqf-Alal-Aulad (family Waqf), the changes stop its misuse—think back to Zamindari-era land grabs—while protecting rights for women, children, widows, and orphans, reflecting Islam’s focus on compassion.

The old system was a mess. In Haryana and across India, Mutawallis often dodged audits, leaving revenue at a trickle compared to what it could be. The amendments up the fines—not jail time—to enforce transparency, swap Survey Commissioners for District Collectors with revenue know-how, and put senior officers in charge of disputes for fairness. They also open the door wider: Section 14 includes Haryana’s backward Muslims, women, and smaller sects in Waqf Board governance, making it more representative.

Wild claims—like Karnataka’s supposed ASI land grab or Haryana’s property disputes—get reined in, aligning Waqf with constitutional property rights under Article 300-A. Dropping Section 108A’s override, which the Sachar Committee flagged as problematic, means Civil and High Courts can step in, tackling a backlog that’s ballooned from 10,000 cases in 2013 to 32,000 today. In Haryana, this could unlock assets for schools or clinics, turning Waqf into a lifeline for communities.

These amendments aren’t some grand conspiracy against Muslims—they’re a practical fix for a creaky system. They stick to secular management, preserve religious purpose, and empower through better efficiency. For Haryana’s Muslims, and others across India and potentially beyond, this could turn neglected plots into engines of progress. Holding onto myths keeps things stuck; facing the facts builds a future worth believing in. Let’s go with the latter.

Time and again, emotional appeals for street protests have been presented as the only recourse—akin to a one-size-fits-all remedy.

Last week, India’s Parliament passed the Waqf Amendment Bill, a piece of legislation aimed at reforming the management of Islamic charitable endowments known as Waqf properties. This move has sparked significant unease among Muslim organizations, civil society groups, and opposition political parties in the country. Despite appeals to India’s President, Droupadi Murmu, to withhold her approval, the bill has now been enacted into law.

Prominent political figures, including Muslim parliamentarians such as Asaduddin Owaisi of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad Muslimeen, Mohammed Jawed of the Indian National Congress, and Amanatullah Khan, a Delhi legislator and chairman of the local Waqf Board from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), have filed legal challenges in India’s Supreme Court, questioning the bill’s alignment with the nation’s constitution.

In contrast, Sanjay Raut, a member of parliament from Shiv Sena (UBT)—a regional political party—has indicated his party’s decision not to oppose the legislation, suggesting a divergence of views even among the government’s critics.

India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led central government defends the bill, asserting it is in the nation’s best interest. Key officials, including Kiren Rijiju, the Minister of Minority Affairs, and Amit Shah, the Minister of Home Affairs, have repeatedly emphasized that the law does not infringe on Muslim rights. Instead, they argue it seeks to improve the efficiency of Waqf Boards—bodies responsible for overseeing these endowments. The government has dismissed opposition claims that the bill undermines constitutional protections as baseless.

Nevertheless, a coalition of Muslim organizations, individuals, and opposition parties continues to argue that the legislation threatens the sanctity of mosques and graveyards managed under Waqf. Labeling it unconstitutional, these groups are mobilizing for nationwide protests, including large-scale sit-ins and street demonstrations, to demand the law’s repeal.

The Historical Context of Waqf Management

Before jumping to support calls for protests, it’s worth exploring the historical management of Waqf properties—endowments established under Islamic law for charitable purposes—since India’s independence in 1947. This moment of controversy offers a chance to reflect on how these assets, meant to serve religious and social welfare, have been handled over decades.

A 2011 report by the Sachar Committee, a government-appointed panel studying the socio-economic conditions of Indian Muslims, alongside data from the Central Waqf Council, revealed that over 50% of Waqf land in India is either encroached upon or tangled in legal disputes—a striking indicator of systemic mismanagement across regions and political regimes.

In Telangana, a southern Indian state never governed by the BJP, approximately 75% of Waqf land is reportedly encroached upon, with the figure rising to 82% in its capital, Hyderabad. This underscores that the problem transcends any single political party or central policy. These statistics challenge the narrative that the current uproar is solely a result of the national government’s actions and prompt scrutiny of the role local Waqf Boards and regional leaders played in allowing such widespread losses to occur.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Results

For decades, the administration of Waqf properties—intended to fund education, healthcare, and welfare initiatives—has failed to deliver on its charitable promise. Despite controlling vast assets, the benefits to India’s Muslim community remain limited. This raises pressing questions about who has truly profited from Waqf properties since India’s independence, who bears responsibility for the encroachments, mismanagement, and misuse of these lands, and how many schools, hospitals, or welfare centers have been established using Waqf resources.

Furthermore, what actions were taken against those who exploited these endowments, and in what measurable ways has Waqf contributed to the economic advancement of Muslims? Calls for accountability and reform in Waqf management should have surfaced long ago. Instead, the same organizations now rallying for protests—many of which oversaw this decline—are accused of stirring emotions for political leverage.

Critics argue these self-proclaimed “guardians” of the Muslim community have historically mismanaged Waqf resources, often prioritizing personal or political gain over communal welfare.

The Myth of Wake-Up Calls

Much has been said about “wake-up calls” to galvanize India’s Muslim community. Yet, the reality suggests that community leaders and Waqf custodians were never dormant—they were simply focused elsewhere.

Many Waqf properties have been illegally occupied, with rents kept artificially low, allowing beneficiaries to exploit them for decades without oversight or adjustment. This pattern of neglect raises doubts about the sincerity of those now decrying the new law.

The Pattern of Response to Legislation

A recurring trend emerges in how certain groups react to laws perceived to affect Muslim interests in India. When the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) were introduced—policies aimed at streamlining citizenship processes—similar fears were ignited, with claims that Muslims would be stripped of citizenship. Years after the CAA’s implementation, no widespread evidence of such disenfranchisement has emerged.

This history prompts questions about the opposition to the Waqf Amendment Bill: Are objections rooted in genuine threats to religious rights, or do they reflect an automatic resistance that ultimately serves political agendas rather than community well-being?

The Human Cost of Protest Without Protection

Time and again, emotional appeals for street protests have been presented as the only recourse—akin to a one-size-fits-all remedy.

During the CAA-NRC protests, fears of mass citizenship loss fueled widespread unrest. Yet, as Minister Kiren Rijiju noted during the Waqf bill debates, no Muslims have lost citizenship under CAA. Still, the fallout from such movements lingers: young Muslims arrested during protests against CAA, NRC, and earlier laws like the Triple Talaq ban often remain in jail, lacking legal or financial support from the groups that spurred them into action.

In Muzaffarnagar, a city in northern India, 24 Muslim youths faced legal notices simply for wearing black armbands as a symbolic dissent—not even a full protest—each required to post a ₹2 lakh (approximately $2,400 USD) bond. In Ahmedabad, a western Indian city, around 40 people were detained during demonstrations.

These cases highlight the risks to ordinary citizens when protests lack strategic planning, legal backing, or institutional support.

Before heeding new calls to protest, communities deserve to know whether organizers have secured proper permissions from authorities, are prepared to provide legal aid to those arrested, have a legal team in place, will accept responsibility for the outcomes, and will support the families of detainees financially and emotionally.

The Path Forward: Reform and Accountability

The current Waqf management system demands overhaul. Transparency, accountability, and effectiveness must take precedence over political maneuvering. Rather than blanket opposition, India’s Muslim community could benefit from demanding targeted amendments to problematic clauses in the bill instead of outright rejection, proposing governance models that balance religious autonomy with accountability, establishing independent oversight to track how Waqf resources serve the community, creating forums for community input into Waqf decisions, and developing long-term plans to leverage Waqf assets for education, healthcare, and economic growth.

From Reaction to Responsible Engagement

India’s Muslim community faces a pivotal choice. The current approach lacks strategy, unified leadership, negotiation, or internal reform—just a repetitive cycle of politicization until issues reach the courts. Continuing this pattern of protest and division is an option, but so is redirecting energy toward ensuring Waqf properties fulfill their charitable mission. The community must resist further manipulation.

For decades, Waqf assets have been plundered while leaders stood by. Now, as the government pushes for accountability, some of these same figures are accused of misleading the public once more.

True leadership goes beyond rallying crowds—it requires vision, strategy, and responsibility. By advocating for reforms that bring transparency and efficiency to Waqf management, the community can ensure these resources uplift its most vulnerable members and build enduring institutions for future generations.

The challenge is not merely whether to oppose a law, but how to ensure the sacred trust of Waqf serves its intended purpose: benefiting the community it was created to support.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.