Supreme Court Upholds Birthright, Denies Trump’s Bid

In a 6-3 decision released Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitution’s guarantee of citizenship for children born in the United States, rejecting President Donald Trump’s attempt—through an executive order—to narrow birthright citizenship by arguing t

For families who have lived with the certainty of the Fourteenth Amendment for generations. Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision landed like a door closing. In a 6-3 ruling released Tuesday. the court upheld the constitutional promise that children born in the United States are U.S. citizens at birth—rejecting President Donald Trump’s effort to rewrite what that guarantee means.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the citizenship clause is straightforward. “Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. ” he wrote. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in part, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

Roberts grounded the decision in what he described as the purpose of citizenship itself—political participation. Citizenship. he wrote. has been defined as having rights to “freely participate in our political community.” The Framers. Roberts said. extended that promise “to ‘every free-born person in this land. ’” and “We keep that promise today.”.

The language at the center of the dispute traces directly to the Fourteenth Amendment: it states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”

Trump’s executive order. issued in January 2025. argued that the amendment was never meant to apply to children born to parents living in the U.S. temporarily or illegally. The administration said the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” referred only to those who were lawful subjects of America or who had what it called “domicile.” Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued at oral arguments in April that a person can only be considered “domiciled” in the U.S. if they have permission to legally reside in America.

But the majority rejected that tight reading. The opinion pointed out that the word “domicile” appears nowhere in the text of the 14th Amendment. and it said arguments for limiting birthright citizenship to those “domiciled” in the U.S. fail. The majority cited the court’s 1898 decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. where the Supreme Court affirmed that children born in the United States to parents who were not diplomats or foreign officials had the right to citizenship.

Roberts’ majority opinion also challenged the administration’s attempt to redefine allegiance. “Arguments for limiting birthright citizenship to those domiciled in the United States fail. These arguments err in their definition of ‘allegiance. ’ contending that natural allegiance was no longer sufficient for citizenship and that some greater quantum of allegiance (based on domicile) was required. ” the majority wrote. The opinion said there was “scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view. ” noting that “sources from 1776 to 1868 defined ‘allegiance by birth’ just as the British did — as ‘the tie or duty’ owed by one who is ‘born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign.’”.

The court added that if Congress meant to limit citizenship only to children of people “domiciled” in the U.S. “nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design.” The majority also highlighted that words appearing “frequently” in Trump’s executive order—like “mother. ” “father. ” “lawful. ” and “temporary”—are absent from the citizenship clause.

Tuesday’s decision also featured sharp divisions inside the court. In their concurrence, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor took aim at Thomas’ dissenting views on birthright citizenship. “Despite his longstanding endorsement of a ‘colorblind’ Constitution. Justice Thomas now surprisingly suggests that the Citizenship Clause was a race-conscious remedial measure. relating only to ‘freed slaves such as Dred Scott. ’” Jackson wrote. “It is for this reason. he says. that ‘children who were born in the United States but [to parents] not domiciled here’ are not entitled to claim birthright citizenship.”.

Jackson said Thomas’ “narrow vision” bore little relationship to the amendment’s ratification. “Even worse. Justice Thomas’s telling elides the entire point of the Second Founding: The Reconstruction Amendments were an anticaste. antisubordination reset for the Nation. not a mere spot treatment for the dark stain of slavery. ” she wrote.

Kavanaugh. dissenting in part. argued that the constitutional issue was not “straightforward. much as we may want it to be.” He said there are exceptions recognized when Wong Kim Ark was decided. and that exceptions should exist today too. Kavanaugh said those exceptions should be limited to children born to foreign citizens or to children whose parents live in the U.S. unlawfully or temporarily. He also suggested Congress step in by amending the 14th Amendment “or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions” to birthright citizenship.

Thomas. in his dissent. called the majority’s ruling “not historically accurate” and described it as an “extraordinary step” that “adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment. which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.” He also wrote: “Together. we sent a clear message: No President can rewrite the Constitution.”.

Outside the court. the ruling was framed as both vindication and a warning about what happens when policy aims collide with constitutional text. Aarti Kohli. executive director of the Asian Law Caucus—the group that first brought the lawsuit along with the ACLU and several state ACLU chapters—said the decision reflects a legacy rooted in hard-won civil rights.

Kohli said it was “because of the organized struggle by formerly enslaved Black Americans and San Francisco Chinese immigrants, [that] it has been understood that when you are born here, you are a citizen. That legacy continues today.”

Kohli added that the administration’s approach created fear and disruption. “Together, we sent a clear message: No President can rewrite the Constitution. The administration spent more than a year creating chaos and fear for all families. At a time when Americans needed their government focused on gas prices. groceries. and healthcare. this was a costly distraction. ” she said. “Politicians should not be rewriting who belongs and who gets a say in our democracy. and now is the time to use our voices to ensure our country is a place where we all belong.”.

Not everyone treated Tuesday’s outcome as a clean end to a broader legal fight. Thomas Wolf, director of democracy initiatives at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, said the ruling was “the right one” but argued it shouldn’t be treated like a full restoration of democratic guardrails.

“Today’s ruling is the right one amid an avalanche of Supreme Court opinions undermining our democracy. The Court could not have defensibly ruled any differently,” Wolf said in a statement. “In just the past few weeks alone. the Court further undermined the Voting Rights Act. encouraged more aggressive partisan gerrymandering. dangerously expanded presidential power over federal agencies. and further depleted protections for immigrants. This ruling does not make up for all the damage the Court has done this term.”.

The decision also arrives after the court previously took up the issue in a major procedural dispute. Last year. the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to mostly block nationwide injunctions that lower courts had put on Trump’s birthright citizenship order. The conservative majority wrote last June that nationwide injunctions—court orders that universally restrict or stop a party from acting—were an “affront to executive power” and “too powerful a tool for the judiciary to wield.”.

Tuesday’s ruling now stands as the final word on the constitutional question presented. keeping in place the longstanding interpretation that birthright citizenship applies to children born in the United States—even when their parents are alleged to have been unlawfully or temporarily present. The immediate policy effort has been rejected. But the fight over how far presidents can go to reshape constitutional meaning. and what Congress might do if it chooses to respond. is far from finished.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Supreme Court birthright citizenship Fourteenth Amendment John Roberts Trump executive order Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause Wong Kim Ark Aarti Kohli ACLU Ketanji Brown Jackson Sonia Sotomayor Clarence Thomas Brett Kavanaugh Samuel Alito Neil Gorsuch