The US Supreme Court has rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship, ruling against one of the administration’s key immigration policies and preserving a constitutional right that has been recognised in the United States for more than a century.
In a 6-3 decision, the court upheld a lower court ruling that blocked President Trump’s executive order directing federal agencies to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States if neither parent is a US citizen nor a lawful permanent resident, commonly known as a green card holder.
The ruling marks the second major setback for the president at the Supreme Court this year, following the court’s February decision that struck down his broad global tariff policy.
The legal challenge centred on the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which states that all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the country and the state in which they live.
Trump signed the executive order on his first day after returning to office as part of a wider effort to tighten both legal and illegal immigration. His administration argued that the constitutional phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should exclude children born to parents who are in the country unlawfully or are living in the United States on temporary visas, such as students or foreign workers.
Administration lawyers maintained that citizenship should apply only to children whose parents have a permanent legal connection and primary allegiance to the United States through lawful permanent residence or citizenship.
Opponents of the order argued that the administration’s interpretation conflicted with the Constitution and longstanding legal precedent. They pointed to the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which established that children born on US soil are citizens regardless of their parents’ nationality, with limited exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats or members of an occupying enemy force.
During oral arguments in April, Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the administration’s position, saying unrestricted birthright citizenship had encouraged “birth tourism,” in which foreign nationals travel to the United States to give birth so their children obtain American citizenship. However, when questioned by the justices, Sauer acknowledged there was no definitive data showing the scale of the practice.
The case before the Supreme Court arose from a class-action lawsuit filed in New Hampshire by parents and children who argued that the executive order threatened the citizenship rights of newborns across the country. Legal experts had estimated that the policy could have affected up to 250,000 babies born each year and required many families to prove the citizenship status of their newborn children.
US District Judge Joseph Laplante had previously certified the case as a nationwide class action and blocked enforcement of the order while the legal challenge proceeded.
The Supreme Court’s decision leaves the nationwide injunction in place, ensuring that birthright citizenship remains protected under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The ruling also reinforces the long-established constitutional principle that most children born on US soil automatically acquire American citizenship at birth.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login