The Supreme Court was widely expected to rule on birthright citizenship by the end of last week. It didn't — and now the most consequential citizenship case in a generation, one whose legal roots trace to a San Francisco Chinatown kitchen, is among the eight decisions the justices have left to hand down, with the next opinions expected Monday morning.

At issue in Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365) is whether President Trump's executive order ending automatic citizenship for many U.S.-born babies squares with the 14th Amendment. After April 1 oral arguments in which a majority of justices appeared skeptical of the administration's position, the ruling will either reaffirm a foundational constitutional guarantee or mark the most significant restriction on American citizenship in modern history. San Francisco advocates who convened a briefing last week say the stakes are stark: more than 255,000 babies a year could be rendered stateless.

The Supreme Court's term ends this week, and the justices still have eight decisions to issue — among them Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship challenge. Court watchers had flagged late June as the likely window; SCOTUSblog noted earlier this month that the court appeared to be running behind. The justices issued opinions on June 23 and June 25 — including major immigration rulings on Temporary Protected Status and asylum at the border — but left the citizenship question for another day. The next opinions are expected Monday.

When it comes, the decision will close a loop more than 128 years in the making. The modern rule of birthright citizenship was established in a case involving a San Francisco-born son of Chinese immigrants — and that precedent is exactly what both sides are now fighting over.

The case traces its lineage to Wong Kim Ark, a cook born in San Francisco's Chinatown in the 1870s to Chinese immigrant parents. When he returned from a visit to China in 1895, federal immigration officials denied him re-entry, claiming he was not an American citizen. He sued. In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment made Wong Kim Ark a citizen from birth — establishing the principle of birthright citizenship that has governed American law ever since.

Now that precedent sits at the center of Trump v. Barbara.

President Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term ending birthright citizenship for babies born in the United States unless they had at least one parent who was a citizen or permanent resident. Every federal court to review the order has struck it down, and it has never taken effect. Last June, the Supreme Court narrowed the reach of those lower-court orders — deciding in Trump v. CASA that judges generally can't issue sweeping nationwide injunctions — but left the underlying constitutional question unanswered.

Trump v. Barbara takes up that question directly. The case originated in New Hampshire, where a federal judge blocked the administration from denying citizenship documents to a group of newborns, finding the order likely contradicts the text of the 14th Amendment and the century-old precedent interpreting it. The Supreme Court took the case before the appeals court could rule, expediting a decision for the end of this term.

At April 1 oral arguments — attended, at least briefly, by Trump himself — Cecillia Wang, representing the challengers, told the justices that the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause established a "fixed bright-line rule" that "prevents manipulation." She argued the government had made a key concession by declining to ask the court to overturn Wong Kim Ark outright.

Much of the session centered on what Wong Kim Ark requires. Justice Elena Kagan pressed Solicitor General D. John Sauer on the 1898 case's "very clear rationale" — a historical tradition of citizenship by birth that the 14th Amendment absorbed without limitation. By the end of arguments, SCOTUSblog reported, a majority of justices appeared likely to rule against the administration. Nothing about an outcome is guaranteed, but the argument gave challengers reason for cautious optimism.

San Francisco-based advocates spent last Tuesday putting numbers to the stakes. The Asian Law Caucus and ReThink Media — both based in the city — held a press briefing warning that if the court sides with Trump, more than 255,000 babies per year could be born in the United States as citizens of no country, according to NBC Bay Area. They also noted that roughly 4.5 million children under 18 currently living in the U.S. have at least one undocumented parent — families for whom the ruling will carry immediate consequences.

Norman Wong, great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark, has followed the case with a sense of personal weight. "If we don't win this, I feel sorry, not for me, but for everyone that comes after me, because I think the erosion of our rights is just going to start with this," he told NBC Bay Area. "It's not the America I thought I grew up in."

Barring another delay, the answer is expected Monday morning.