The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship, reaffirming one of the country’s most enduring constitutional principles: that nearly everyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen. In a 6-3 decision issued on June 30, 2026, the Court ruled that the order violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and cannot be enforced. The ruling marks one of the most significant constitutional rulings on citizenship and immigration in recent decades.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the executive order could not stand but based his reasoning on federal law rather than the Constitution. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.  

The ruling preserves the longstanding interpretation that children born in the United States are citizens at birth regardless of their parents’ immigration status, except for a few narrow constitutional exceptions, such as children born to foreign diplomats or members of an occupying enemy force.  

What Was Trump’s Executive Order?

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending automatic birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States.

Under the order, citizenship would not have been recognized for children born in the United States if their mother was either unlawfully present or lawfully present on a temporary basis, and their father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident.

The administration argued that these children were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. That interpretation represented a significant departure from more than a century of constitutional practice and immediately triggered lawsuits from states, civil rights organizations, and affected families.  

The Constitutional Question

At the center of the case was the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The amendment was ratified in 1868 following the Civil War to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people and overturn the legacy of the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which had denied citizenship to Black Americans. In 1898, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, holding that children born in the United States are citizens even if their parents are foreign nationals.  

The Trump administration argued that the constitutional phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should exclude children whose parents were unlawfully present or only temporarily residing in the country.

The Court rejected that interpretation.

Why the Supreme Court Ruled Against the Order

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the administration’s interpretation found little support in constitutional history or longstanding legal precedent.

Roberts wrote that there was “scant evidence” supporting the government’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and reaffirmed that birthright citizenship has been understood consistently for generations.  

He also emphasized the broader constitutional importance of citizenship, writing:

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community.”

He concluded with a statement that captured the significance of the ruling:

“We keep that promise today.”  

Justice Kavanaugh agreed that the executive order was unlawful but concluded that it conflicted with existing federal statutes governing citizenship rather than directly violating the Constitution. The three dissenting justices argued that the Citizenship Clause should be interpreted more narrowly than previous courts have recognized.  

Why the Executive Order Never Took Effect

Although the executive order was signed in January 2025, it never went into effect.

Federal courts quickly issued injunctions preventing its enforcement while legal challenges moved through the judicial system. As a result, children born during the litigation continued to receive U.S. citizenship under the existing constitutional framework.

The Supreme Court’s decision now resolves the constitutional question by declaring that the executive order cannot be enforced.  

What the Decision Means

The ruling confirms that:

  • Birthright citizenship remains protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • A president cannot redefine constitutional citizenship through executive action.
  • The interpretation established in United States v. Wong Kim Ark remains controlling law.
  • Any future effort to change birthright citizenship would require a different legal path capable of surviving constitutional scrutiny.  

Looking Ahead

The decision represents a major legal defeat for one of the Trump administration’s most ambitious immigration initiatives, but it is unlikely to end the political debate surrounding birthright citizenship.

Following the ruling, administration officials indicated they would continue pursuing other immigration enforcement priorities, including efforts targeting fraudulent “birth tourism” schemes, while supporters of the executive order have suggested legislative approaches to revisit the issue.  

The Broader Significance

The Supreme Court’s decision arrived just days before the United States marks the 250th anniversary of its founding, reinforcing a constitutional principle that has shaped American citizenship for more than 150 years. Rather than viewing the case solely as an immigration dispute, the Court framed it as a question about the meaning of citizenship under the Constitution.

By striking down the executive order, the Court reaffirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship cannot be altered through presidential action. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote, citizenship is “the right to have rights,” and with this decision, the Court concluded that “we keep that promise today.”