Supreme Court Reaffirms Birthright Citizenship, Striking Down Executive Order

In Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s Executive Order attempting to end birthright citizenship. According to the Court, 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. 

The decision represents one of the Court’s most significant constitutional rulings on citizenship in more than a century, reaffirming the principle ofjus soli—citizenship by place of birth—as a foundational feature of American constitutional law.

Facts of the Case

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[a]ll 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.”

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 14160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. The Order directed federal agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the United States if their parents were either unlawfully present or only temporarily present under certain immigration classifications. According to the Administration, such children were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act, which incorporates the same constitutional language.

Several families challenged the Executive Order in federal court, arguing that it violated both the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The district court provisionally certified a nationwide class of affected children and entered a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the Order while the litigation proceeded. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed to resolve the constitutional question.

Majority Decision

The Supreme Court affirmed, with Chief Justice John Roberts authoring the majority opinion.

The Court began by examining the historical origins of the Citizenship Clause, explaining that the Fourteenth Amendment codified the English common-law principle of jus soli, under which birth within the sovereign’s territory generally conferred citizenship. That principle, the Court explained, remained the prevailing rule in the United States until the Supreme Court’s infamous decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), which denied citizenship to persons of African descent.

The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in direct response toDred Scott, restoring and constitutionalizing the traditional rule that birth within the United States ordinarily confers citizenship.

Chief Justice Roberts explained that the Citizenship Clause follows the common-law framework by requiring both birth within the United States and subjection to the nation’s sovereign authority. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the Court concluded, refers to the federal government’s legal authority over persons within its territory—not to their immigration status or political allegiance.

Because noncitizens present in the United States, whether lawfully or unlawfully, are generally required to obey American laws and are subject to the jurisdiction of American courts, their U.S.-born children satisfy the jurisdiction requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court also reaffirmed its landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898),which held that a child born in the United States to noncitizen parents was a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the majority, Wong Kim Ark established a broad constitutional rule that has governed for more than 125 years. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

What the Court held inWong Kim Arkwas simple: the Citizenship Clause incorporated the common law and granted citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States. Not surprisingly, then, in the 128 years since, we have repeatedly understood the rule to guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its power.

The Court rejected the government’s argument that “subject to the jurisdiction” should be interpreted to require a child’s parents to possess lawful immigration status, permanent residence, or some form of political allegiance to the United States. Nothing in the text, history, or original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment, the majority concluded, supports reading such limitations into the Constitution.

Chief Justice Roberts closed by emphasizing the broader constitutional values reflected in the Citizenship Clause:

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.

Dissent

Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. According to the dissenting justices, the majority’s erroneous interpretation of the Citizenship Clause improperly expanded the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship beyond what the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to provide. Justice Gorsuch and Justice Samuel Alito also wrote separate dissenting opinions.