The justices said President Donald Trump cannot change the definition of birthright citizenship with the stroke of a pen.
Protesters gather outside Supreme Court over birthright citizenship
Protesters react outside the Supreme Court as the justices listen to arguments on birthright citizenship and explain why this case is important to them.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 30 rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to redefine who is an American by striking down the birthright citizenship restrictions that had been the centerpiece of his hardline approach to immigration..
The ruling comes as the country prepares to celebrate its 250th anniversary.th The anniversary adds even more significance to an already blockbuster case.
And it comes months after a court invalidated President Trump’s signature tariffs, again denying him the expanded authority he has asserted since returning to the White House last year.
But judges have upheld the president’s authority in other immigration cases, including last week’s decision that allowed Trump to end deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants.
But in their latest ruling, the justices said Trump cannot change the definition of birthright citizenship with the stroke of a pen. President Trump’s push for that change has upended how a constitutional guarantee long considered a bedrock American principle has been historically understood.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily meet the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights and to participate freely in our political community.” “The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to “all persons born free in this land.” We keep that promise today. ”
The court’s three other conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, dissented.
Thomas said the decision “devalues” American citizenship and is unlikely to “stand the test of time.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a fellow conservative and appointed by President Trump, said he would have ruled against the order on narrower grounds.
Kavanaugh said the order does not violate the 14th Amendment, but it does violate the Immigration Act of 1952.
President Trump’s Inauguration Day Birthright Citizenship Order Immediately Blocked
On his first day back in office, Trump directed federal authorities not to grant citizenship to infants born in the United States where at least one parent is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (a “green card” holder).
President Trump’s order was immediately challenged through multiple lawsuits filed by expectant parents, immigrant rights groups, and 22 state attorneys general.
The Supreme Court took up President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order last year, but only to determine whether lower courts went too far in blocking enforcement while the order was being litigated. In the 6-3 decision, the court rejected the way the justices had put President Trump’s order on ice but left an alternative path open.
And a federal judge in New Hampshire quickly blocked the citizenship order again, ruling that it likely violated the Civil Rights Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the federal law codifying those rights.
President Trump called for restrictions on birthright citizenship
Trump, who was the first sitting president to attend oral arguments in April arguing for birthright citizenship restrictions, argued that the citizenship clause was misunderstood. He said it should not apply to children born to parents who are not citizens or permanent residents., That’s because, even though they must obey U.S. laws during their stay, they may feel loyal to a foreign country.
“No nation can succeed with an anchor like this tied tightly around its neck,” President Trump wrote on social media in April.
The president also argued that the landmark 1898 Supreme Court decision on the Fourteenth Amendment applies to children whose parents are “permanent residents and residents of the United States,” an interpretation that “protects the meaning and value” of American citizenship.
“Our Foundation as a Nation”
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents immigrants who challenged the executive order, argued that birthright citizenship is “the foundation of who we are as a nation.”
“If you ask any American about their citizenship rules, they will tell you that everyone born here is a citizen,” Cecilia Wang, the ACLU’s national legal director, told the justices during oral arguments. “The clear and unambiguous provisions of the 14th Amendment have contributed to our nation’s growth and prosperity.”
Wang herself is a citizen under the Constitution because her Taiwanese parents were in the United States on a student visa when she was born.
Under President Trump’s policies, about 255,000 children born on U.S. soil each year would start their lives without U.S. citizenship, according to the Migration Policy Institute. This corresponds to approximately 6% of all expected births.
Pregnant women challenged President Trump’s order
The parents representing their children in Trump v. Barbara include a woman from Honduras who has lived in the United States since 2024 and gave birth in the months after President Trump signed the executive order.
The woman, identified by the pseudonym “Barbara,” said in a court filing that she is seeking asylum from gang activity in Honduras and that her family is part of the local community in New Hampshire.
Another mother who challenged the order came to the United States from Taiwan on a student visa in 2013 and is applying for a work visa. She and her husband have four children, three of whom were born in the U.S. before Trump’s executive order and one after.
“My husband and I ended up building a life here,” the woman known as “Susan” said in a court filing. “My baby deserves American citizenship and a future.”
Contents of the citizenship clause
The Fourteenth Amendment, one of three constitutional amendments adopted after the Civil War, overturned the Supreme Court’s infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision that enslaved and free blacks could not become citizens.
But the citizenship clause is not limited to the status of black people.
The proposed amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are nationals of the United States and the state in which they reside.”
During oral arguments, conservative justices cited President Trump’s policy arguments to limit birthright citizenship, but they rejected them. These included the president’s assertion that “birth tourism” (the practice of pregnant women coming to the United States to give birth to their babies in order to make them citizens) is a major threat to national security and an invitation to illegal immigration.
When Attorney General John Sauer told the justices that the citizenship clause applies in the “new world,” Roberts responded that such concerns “do not affect the legal analysis before us.”
“This is a new world,” Roberts said. “It’s the same constitution.”
