The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, June 30, 2026, that children born in the United States are citizens at birth even if their parents are in the country unlawfully or temporarily.
The decision in Trump v. Barbara rejected President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship.
The Court affirmed a lower court order blocking the policy by a 6 to 3 judgment. But only five justices agreed that the 14th Amendment itself protects citizenship for the children covered by the order.
Trump signed Executive Order 14160 on January 20, 2025, his first day back in office.
The order said federal agencies should not recognize citizenship for some children born in the United States if their mother was unlawfully present or in temporary legal status and their father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The order was published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2025. Lower courts blocked it before it could take effect.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the main opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The majority said the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause covers children born on U.S. soil who are subject to U.S. law.
The opinion relied on the amendment’s text, Reconstruction history and the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which recognized birthright citizenship for a child born in the United States to foreign parents.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that Trump’s order could not stand, but he did not join the constitutional holding.
Kavanaugh said the executive order violated 8 U.S. Code 1401(a), the federal law that defines who is a citizen at birth.
That statute says a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen at birth.
Kavanaugh suggested Congress could try to change that statute. But because five justices held that the Constitution itself protects the right, any future law would face a major constitutional barrier.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the judgment.
Thomas, joined by Gorsuch, argued that the Citizenship Clause should not be read to automatically cover children whose parents are not domiciled in the United States.
Alito wrote separately that the majority’s ruling gave citizenship too broadly. Gorsuch also wrote his own dissent.
Jackson wrote a separate concurrence, joined in part by Sotomayor, arguing that the Reconstruction Amendments were meant to reset American citizenship and equality after slavery.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War.
The National Archives says a major provision of the amendment granted citizenship to people born or naturalized in the United States.
The amendment was adopted after the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which had denied citizenship to people of African descent.
The ruling is a major loss for Trump’s immigration agenda. His administration had argued that the Citizenship Clause did not protect children born to parents who were unlawfully or temporarily in the country.
The Court’s decision means the executive branch cannot deny citizenship documents to children covered by the blocked order.
The ruling does not end political debate over birthright citizenship. But it keeps one of the country’s oldest citizenship rules in place as the United States prepares to mark its 250th anniversary.