The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order curbing birthright citizenship. 

In a massive 194-page, 5-4 ruling, the Court affirmed a District Court ruling, holding that Executive Order 14160 – Trump’s attempt to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or only temporarily present – violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson.

Justice Kavanaugh provided the sixth vote against the order while explicitly rejecting the majority’s constitutional theory, arguing the EO fails only because it conflicts with a 1940s immigration statute – leaving the door open for Congress, not the Constitution, to revisit the question.

BREAKING: The Supreme Court has ruled that the children of illegal aliens and foreign nationals born in the U.S. count as American citizens.

Roberts and Barrett joined all the liberals.

Disgusting. pic.twitter.com/FStIm0J3R3

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) June 30, 2026

Polymarket had it right on SCOTUS Birthright decision (it wasn’t even close) pic.twitter.com/aIXK1g9kcz

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 30, 2026

Background

Birthright citizenship – the principle that nearly everyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen – has stood as a foundational element of American law and identity for more than 150 years. Its modern constitutional anchor is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The clause was enacted primarily to overturn the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (which denied citizenship to black people) and to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their descendants. It established a clear rule of jus soli (citizenship by birth on the soil) with narrow historical exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats or members of invading armies.

The Supreme Court’s landmark 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark cemented this broad understanding. Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were legal residents but ineligible for naturalization under then-existing exclusionary laws, was ruled a U.S. citizen. Justice Horace Gray’s majority opinion affirmed that the 14th Amendment codifies “the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country,” applying to children of resident aliens without regard to race or the precise immigration status of the parents (beyond the traditional exceptions).

For well over a century, this interpretation has governed practice: federal agencies, courts, and both political parties treated birth on U.S. soil as conferring citizenship almost universally, regardless of whether a parent was undocumented, a temporary visa holder, or a lawful permanent resident.

The Modern Challenges

In recent decades, conservatives, immigration restriction advocates, and President Donald Trump have advanced a narrower reading. They argue that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires a deeper form of political allegiance or domicile – essentially limiting automatic citizenship to children of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. In short: the clause was chiefly meant for freed slaves and their children, that extending it to children of undocumented immigrants creates “anchor babies,” encourages illegal immigration and birth tourism, and imposes costs on the country. They point to certain 19th-century commentaries and historical practices in other nations as support.

On January 20, 2025 – his first day in office for his second term – President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order directs federal agencies not to recognize U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States after February 20, 2025, in two main scenarios:

• The mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. and the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident (LPR/green card holder); or
• The mother’s presence was lawful but temporary (e.g., student, work, or tourist visa) and the father is neither a citizen nor LPR.

The administration maintains this is consistent with the 14th Amendment’s original meaning and with the statutory codification in 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which largely tracks the constitutional language.

The Path to the Supreme Court

The order never took effect. Federal district courts in multiple jurisdictions quickly struck it down as unconstitutional, with one judge describing it as “blatantly unconstitutional.” In June 2025, the Supreme Court addressed related procedural issues in Trump v. CASA (and companion cases), ruling 6-3 that district courts generally lack authority to issue universal/nationwide injunctions. This narrowed some protections but left the core constitutional question unresolved.

Today’s SCOTUS case, Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365), stemmed from a class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Plaintiffs include families challenging the order on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of affected children. One named representative is “Barbara,” a Honduran asylum applicant whose child was due in late 2025; other plaintiffs include individuals on temporary visas (e.g., a Taiwanese student whose daughter was born in April 2025) and a Brazilian applicant for permanent residence whose son was born in March 2025. The district court issued a preliminary injunction and provisionally certified a nationwide class, finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits. The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment from the First Circuit.

During oral arguments held April 1, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the order – emphasizing historical sources, the role of “domicile” in Wong Kim Ark, and contemporary policy concerns. Plaintiffs’ counsel Cecillia Wang urged the Court to reaffirm Wong Kim Ark as establishing a fixed, bright-line rule rooted in text, history, and longstanding practice.

Questioning from the justices spanned the ideological spectrum and focused heavily on Wong Kim Ark, the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and whether the government’s proposed limitations could be squared with precedent and the amendment’s text. Observers noted significant skepticism toward the administration’s position, with several justices highlighting the breadth of the 1898 ruling and questioning efforts to distinguish it or limit its application based on parental status. A decision was widely expected by the end of the Court’s term (June 30, 2026) or shortly thereafter.