Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Order Ending Birthright Citizenship
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, ruling 6-3 that nearly all children born on American soil are citizens under the 14th Amendment.
Writing for the majority in Trump v. Barbara, Chief Justice John Roberts held that children born to parents unlawfully or temporarily in the United States “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause.” He added, “Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth.”
The decision, reported by SCOTUSblog, rejects the order Trump signed on Jan. 20, 2025, shortly after his second inauguration. That order declared that babies born in the country to parents present illegally or temporarily were not automatically entitled to citizenship.
A divided court
The majority was composed of Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson, according to The Seattle Times. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed the order was invalid but on different grounds.
Kavanaugh wrote in a concurrence that the order “does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment” but conflicts with a federal law granting citizenship to those born in the country and subject to its jurisdiction. Congress “could amend” that law to create exceptions, he noted, “but … Congress has not yet done so.”
The ruling upheld the constitutional principle only narrowly. Six justices agreed to strike down the order, but just five concurred it was unconstitutional. The Guardian reported the court averted a scenario in which more than 250,000 children each year would have been born in the U.S. without citizenship, many of them stateless.
Roberts leans on history
Much of Roberts' opinion traced English common law and the 1868 adoption of the 14th Amendment, which repudiated the 1857 Dred Scott decision. He wrote that the framers intended to “permanently enshrine” the existing understanding of birthright citizenship: “A child born on American soil and subject to American law was made an American citizen.”
The chief justice pointed to the court's 1898 ruling in the case of Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to parents of Chinese descent, which he said “granted citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States.” Roberts rejected the government's argument that citizenship should hinge on a parent's “domicile,” saying there was “scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view.”
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community,” Roberts concluded, adding, “We keep that promise today.” From the bench, he said simply, “We break no new ground today.”
Sharp dissents
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the main dissent, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, arguing American-born children are not automatically citizens. “The Citizenship Clause was enacted for people who were born in this country and called it home,” Thomas wrote, contending Trump's order “is not facially unconstitutional.”
Justice Samuel Alito called the decision “one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court” and “a serious mistake,” arguing the amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.” Gorsuch filed a separate brief dissent questioning where undocumented parents intending to stay permanently are domiciled.
Justice Jackson agreed with the opinion in full but wrote separately to answer Thomas. “The Reconstruction Amendments were an anti-caste, anti-subordination reset for the Nation,” she wrote, “not a mere spot treatment for the dark stain of slavery.”
Political reaction
House Speaker Mike Johnson said he was “very disappointed” in the ruling, according to PBS NewsHour. His news conference was interrupted by the decision, and he responded, “Oh dear,” as a reporter read it aloud. Johnson said the ruling would subject the country to “serious challenges going forward.”
Immigrant rights advocates expressed mixed emotions. Lindsay Toczylowski of the legal aid group ImmDef called it “a day … to reflect on the damage this case has done to our democracy.” The ruling follows a string of immigration decisions this term, including moves that let the administration end temporary protected status for Haitians and Syrians and expand border power over green card holders. Lower courts had also weighed fast-track deportations during the same stretch.
The case reached the justices after the court's earlier ruling in Trump v. CASA, which barred nationwide injunctions, and a July 2025 New Hampshire order that blocked enforcement. The court granted review Dec. 5 and heard argument April 1.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court decide?
The court ruled 6-3 that children born in the United States are citizens under the 14th Amendment, even if their parents are in the country unlawfully or temporarily, striking down President Trump's executive order.
Who wrote the majority opinion?
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett and Jackson. Justice Kavanaugh agreed the order was invalid but on statutory rather than constitutional grounds.
Which justices dissented?
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Thomas wrote the main dissent, joined by Gorsuch, who also filed a separate opinion; Alito called the ruling “a serious mistake.”
How did political leaders react?
House Speaker Mike Johnson said he was “very disappointed” and warned of “serious challenges going forward.” Immigrant rights advocates voiced relief the order was blocked but concern the dissents lent weight to challenges of birthright citizenship.
Sources
Reporting compiled from court records and the cited source outlets.