Supreme Court Rules Against Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated an executive order from former President Donald Trump that sought to alter birthright citizenship, the guarantee of citizenship for individuals born in the United States.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion in *Trump v. Barbara*, stating that children born to parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States meet both requirements of the Constitution's Citizenship Clause. Roberts concluded that under the Constitution, these individuals are citizens at birth.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution establishes citizenship for anyone “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The Court agreed with challengers and lower courts that Trump’s executive order could not align with this amendment.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, calling the ruling a “serious mistake.” Alito argued that a detailed analysis of the 14th Amendment’s text and historical context indicates it confers citizenship only on children who owe allegiance solely to the U.S. at birth.

Trump issued the executive order on January 20, 2025, early in his second term. The order stipulated that babies born in the United States to parents who were in the country illegally or temporarily would not automatically gain citizenship. Although the order was scheduled to take effect 30 days after its signing, it never did. Multiple federal judges across the country prevented the Trump administration from enforcing it while legal challenges proceeded.

Last spring, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to review whether lower courts could issue “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions, which are orders that prevent the enforcement of laws or policies nationally. In *Trump v. CASA*, the Court ruled 6-3 that such injunctions were not permissible.

Following that decision, challenges to the merits of Trump’s order continued in lower courts. On July 10, a federal judge in New Hampshire issued a preliminary injunction, blocking the government from enforcing the order against a group of babies born after February 20, 2025, who would have been denied U.S. citizenship. U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante determined that the executive order likely contradicted the 14th Amendment and existing precedent.

The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court on September 26, requesting a review of Laplante’s ruling without waiting for a federal appeals court decision. The justices granted this request on December 5, and oral arguments occurred on April 1.

Chief Justice Roberts noted that early English law automatically made children born in Britain subjects. This concept transferred to the American colonies and was adopted after the Revolution. In 1868, the 14th Amendment aimed to repudiate the 1857 *Dred Scott v. Sandford* ruling, which held that a Black person of enslaved ancestry was not a U.S. citizen. Roberts wrote that the framers of the amendment intended to “permanently enshrine” the existing understanding of birthright citizenship, making “a child born on American soil and subject to American law … an American citizen.”

The Supreme Court affirmed this principle in 1898 through the case of Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents. Immigration officials denied him entry upon his return from China in 1895, claiming he was not a U.S. citizen. Roberts emphasized that *Wong Kim Ark* affirmed the Citizenship Clause incorporated common law, granting citizenship to almost all children born in the U.S. He added that for 128 years, the Court has consistently interpreted this rule to guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its power.

Roberts dismissed the government’s argument that by the time of the 14th Amendment’s enactment, the crucial factor was whether a child owed “primary allegiance” to the U.S., dependent on “domicile.” Roberts stated there was “scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view” and that if Congress intended to limit citizenship to children of those domiciled in the U.S., the language of the Citizenship Clause did not convey that intent.

Roberts concluded, “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred with the invalidation of the executive order but disagreed with the reasoning. Kavanaugh believed Trump’s order did not violate the 14th Amendment but instead violated a federal law granting U.S. citizenship to children “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Kavanaugh suggested Congress could amend this law or enact new legislation to establish exceptions for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. He noted that Congress has not yet done so.

Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thomas asserted the majority’s historical account was “not historically accurate” and contributed to the “sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Justice Gorsuch also wrote a separate dissent. He appeared to suggest the executive order might violate the Constitution concerning children of undocumented immigrants intending permanent residence in the United States. Gorsuch questioned where such parents would be domiciled if not in the U.S., and how this could reconcile with the Court’s recognition that every person has a domicile. He noted these questions were not central to the specific arguments in this case, but their answers are significant for a nation committed to granting citizenship to all children born to parents who consider the U.S. home.