The Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship Tuesday, striking down President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily.
The 6-3 decision in Trump v. Barbara affirmed a lower-court ruling that blocked the order. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment and dissented in part. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship
The ruling rejected the administration’s attempt to narrow the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which states that people born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States and the state where they reside.
Roberts pointed to the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which has long been understood to protect citizenship for children born on U.S. soil, including children of foreign nationals, subject to limited exceptions.
“We see no reason to depart from that view today,” Roberts wrote, referring to the court’s understanding of the 1898 precedent.
Trump Order Targeted Children Of Some Immigrants
Trump signed Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” on Jan. 20, 2025. The order said U.S. agencies should not recognize citizenship for children born in the United States if their mother was unlawfully present and their father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The order also covered children whose mother was lawfully but temporarily present in the country, including on a student, work or tourist visa, if the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The directive applied only to people born more than 30 days after the order was issued. It also instructed federal departments and agencies not to issue documents recognizing citizenship for people covered by those categories.
Lower Courts Blocked The Policy
The executive order had not taken effect after lower courts blocked it. The case before the Supreme Court arose from a class-action lawsuit in New Hampshire brought by parents and children whose citizenship would have been affected by the directive.
The Supreme Court docket shows the case was filed as No. 25-365, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Barbara, et al. The justices heard arguments April 1 and entered judgment June 30 affirming the lower-court ruling.
The administration argued that children of noncitizens are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for purposes of citizenship. Challengers said the order conflicted with the 14th Amendment, federal immigration law and the Supreme Court’s long-standing birthright citizenship precedent.
Ruling Leaves Longstanding Citizenship Rule In Place
The decision keeps in place the broad rule that nearly anyone born in the United States is a citizen, with narrow exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats and children born to an occupying foreign force.
More than a quarter-million babies born in the United States each year would have been affected by the executive order, based on research cited by AP from the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University’s Population Research Institute.
The ruling is a major defeat for one of Trump’s central immigration policies. The president had made the order part of a broader push to tighten immigration rules after returning to office.
Justices Split On Constitutional And Legal Grounds
CBS News reported that five justices agreed Trump’s order violated the 14th Amendment, while Kavanaugh wrote separately to say the order violated federal law. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissented.
The court’s official docket lists Roberts as author of the opinion of the court, with Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett and Jackson joining. Jackson also filed a concurrence, Kavanaugh filed an opinion concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part, and Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch filed dissents.
