The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship on Tuesday, handing him a significant courtroom defeat just weeks into his second term.
The 6-3 decision rejected Trump's attempt to redefine who qualifies for automatic citizenship at birth. Trump had signed the order on his first day back in office on January 20, seeking to limit birthright citizenship to children born to at least one U.S. citizen or permanent resident parent. Under his proposal, babies born to temporary visitors or people who entered the country illegally would lose citizenship claims at birth.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that the 14th Amendment has long granted birthright citizenship to virtually everyone born on American soil. "Citizenship then and now, was the right to have rights, to freely participate in our political community," Roberts wrote. He noted the amendment was enacted after the Civil War specifically to ensure that formerly enslaved people would possess those rights.
Roberts stated there was "scant evidence" supporting the Trump administration's attempt to overturn decades of legal interpretation. "We keep that promise today," he concluded.
Five justices found the order violated the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause directly. Conservative Brett Kavanaugh, while agreeing the order was unlawful, found it violated federal law rather than the Constitution itself. Three conservatives dissented: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch all said the 14th Amendment language would permit Trump's approach.
Thomas, in dissent, argued the amendment was primarily intended to address the status of formerly enslaved Black people, not the children of foreign visitors. He contended that since such children had "other homelands" and foreign allegiances, they fell outside the amendment's scope.
The 14th Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The operative phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" became central to the case. For more than a century, courts have applied this provision broadly, excluding only narrow categories like children of diplomats.
The executive order never took effect. Lower courts blocked it immediately after Trump signed it, and every court to consider the challenge ruled against the administration. The ACLU represented plaintiffs affected by the order, and liberal states also sued to block it.
This marks Trump's third major Supreme Court loss in recent months. In February, the court invalidated his tariff actions. On Monday, it barred him from immediately removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Despite the court's 6-3 conservative majority, including three justices Trump appointed, it has sided with him in other significant cases.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case arising from New Hampshire in December, where the ACLU represented individual plaintiffs, including infants who would have been affected by the order.
Cecilia Wang, the ACLU's National Legal Director, said the decision "reaffirms a fundamental American promise. If you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat."
Author Sarah Mitchell: "The court's conservative supermajority just proved it won't rubber-stamp every Trump power grab, even when three of its own justices would have sided with him."
Comments