Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship, Rejects Trump Administration’s Constitutional Challenge

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship for children born in the United States regardless of whether their parents are in the country lawfully or temporarily, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to narrow the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The landmark decision in Trump v. Barbara reaffirmed more than 150 years of constitutional precedent and prompted celebrations from civil rights, immigrant rights and constitutional advocacy organizations across the country.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country are citizens at birth under the 14th Amendment.

The majority concluded that the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause incorporates the longstanding common-law principle of jus soli—citizenship by place of birth—and that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” includes virtually everyone born on U.S. soil except for a handful of historically recognized exceptions.

The opinion rejected the Trump administration’s argument that birthright citizenship could be limited by executive order to exclude children whose parents lacked permanent legal status.

“The Citizenship Clause must be understood in light of its historical context,” the Court wrote, concluding, “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 Court traced the history of citizenship from English common law through the repudiation of Dred Scott v. Sandford, emphasizing that the Reconstruction Congress intended the 14th Amendment to permanently establish birthright citizenship as a constitutional guarantee rather than leave the issue to future political debate.

The decision also reaffirmed the Court’s landmark 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which recognized citizenship for children born in the United States to immigrant parents.

Civil rights organizations that challenged the executive order called the ruling one of the most significant constitutional victories in recent decades.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also filed a concurring opinion that emphasized the historical significance of the Citizenship Clause and the Reconstruction-era purpose of the 14th Amendment. Joined in part by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Jackson argued that the Court’s decision reaffirmed the Constitution’s rejection of racialized definitions of citizenship that prevailed before the Civil War.

Jackson wrote that the government’s position echoed the central premise of Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 decision holding that people of African descent could not be citizens of the United States. She argued that the Citizenship Clause was adopted specifically to repudiate that reasoning and to establish that citizenship depends on birth within the United States rather than ancestry or bloodline.

In one of the concurrence’s most widely cited passages, Jackson wrote, “It is that odious conclusion that the Citizenship Clause plainly rejects, as the Court explains.” She added, “Thankfully, a majority of the Court remembered this today, and has dutifully preserved the most basic animating principle of our Nation’s founding—that all human beings are created equal—once more.”

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the Court “ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship is unconstitutional,” reaffirming that “birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution and rejects President Trump’s attempt to redefine who is an American citizen through executive action.”

ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang, who argued the case before the Supreme Court, said, “The court’s decision reaffirms a fundamental American promise—if you are born here, you are a citizen.”

“A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat,” Wang continued. “Our brave clients and our legal team stand with millions of people around our country who spoke up for one of our most cherished rights. The Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship stands strong.”

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero described the ruling as a major defeat for the administration.

“With a 6-3 judgment from the U.S. Supreme Court, President Trump suffered a stunning loss on a signature order he signed on day one of his presidency,” Romero said.

“This was one of the most important constitutional cases of the past 100 years. The president bet his legacy trying to secure this policy win—even attending the argument in person—and he lost. It was especially gratifying that the majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice Roberts, and that Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett agreed with the decision to strike down the order.”

The Vera Institute of Justice also celebrated the ruling, arguing that it preserves one of the nation’s foundational constitutional protections.

In a statement, Vera President and Director Insha Rahman said, “The Trump administration has used every tactic imaginable to weaponize the legal system against its perceived opponents and divide our country. In doing so, this president has eroded our democratic values and undermined the safety of our families, neighborhoods, and communities.”

Rahman added, “Today’s ruling, affirming the 14th Amendment, bars the administration from politicizing the Constitution and reinforces a simple fact: If you are born in the United States of America, you are an American citizen. No president or politician should ever get to decide who is ‘American’ enough.”

She concluded, “This is an important victory for our families, our communities, and our democracy.”

The Legal Defense Fund similarly praised the decision while criticizing the fact that the Court was divided rather than unanimous.

“The Constitution, not the president, defines who is a citizen,” said Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of the Legal Defense Fund.

“And the 14th Amendment makes clear that every child born on U.S. soil is a citizen. Today, a narrow majority of the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed these unequivocal truths.”

Nelson cautioned that the ruling should not obscure broader concerns about the Court.

“We cannot and will not turn our attention away from the fact that what should have been 9-0 decision instead revealed that [three] justices agreed to varying degrees with the president’s desecration of the Constitution.”

She continued, “Nor does this absolve the court of its countless decisions that have violated decades of precedent and established doctrine at the expense of Black people, communities of color, and immigrants.”

“Nonetheless, today, we applaud this significant win.”

The Asian Law Caucus connected the ruling to the legacy of Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case that established constitutional birthright citizenship for children born to immigrant parents.

“This is an important victory for all Americans, including Asian Americans who have been told for generations that we don’t belong here, and who have been part of the fight for birthright citizenship from the start,” said Executive Director Aarti Kohli.

“Wong Kim Ark was born just blocks from the Asian Law Caucus. We and our immigrant clients have continued the same fight for full and equal membership in this country. Today, the court reaffirmed what we’ve always known: We are American, and we are here to stay.”

Democracy Defenders Fund Executive Chair Norm Eisen likewise framed the ruling as preserving constitutional limits on presidential authority.

“Today’s ruling is more than a legal landmark. It is a human one,” Eisen said.

“For more than a century, birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of equal citizenship and national belonging in our country. This decision reaffirms that fundamental guarantee—no president has the power to decide who is entitled to the rights our Constitution protects. Americans’ rights cannot simply be erased by the Trump administration’s reckless executive actions.”

The Court’s opinion emphasized that neither the text nor the history of the 14th Amendment supports distinctions based on the immigration status of a child’s parents.

“If Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States,” the Court wrote, “nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design.” The majority further noted that words such as “mother,” “father,” “lawful,” and “temporary,” which appeared throughout the executive order, “are absent from the Clause.”

The Court also rejected arguments that citizenship depends upon the legal status or domicile of parents, concluding that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present remain fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States under the Constitution.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote separately in concurrence, arguing that the government’s position echoed principles long rejected after Dred Scott. In language highlighted by numerous civil rights organizations following the decision, Jackson wrote that “the Citizenship Clause plainly rejects” the idea that “being born on American soil will not suffice to confer citizenship,” adding that “a majority of the Court remembered this today, and has dutifully preserved the most basic animating principle of our Nation’s founding—that all human beings are created equal—once more.”

The ruling concludes more than a year of litigation that began after President Trump issued Executive Order 14160 on his first day back in office, directing federal agencies to deny citizenship to certain children born in the United States based on their parents’ immigration status. Federal district courts blocked the order, and the Supreme Court granted review before the case reached the federal courts of appeals because of its extraordinary constitutional significance.

Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook.  Subscribe the Vanguard News letters.  To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue.  Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.

Categories:

Tags: