The US Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship, ruling against President Donald Trump's executive order that sought to end the policy. The decision affirms that nearly all children born in the United States are citizens, regardless of their parents' immigration status.
Court's Ruling and Rationale
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion, stating: "Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause." The ruling spanned 194 pages, with Justice Clarence Thomas filing a lengthy dissent of nearly 90 pages.
Roberts was joined by liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, along with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment but dissented in part. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.
Background of the Executive Order
On the first day of his second term, Trump issued an executive order seeking to undo birthright citizenship. The order would have overridden the US Constitution, though the administration argued it correctly interpreted the Constitution. The order immediately drew lawsuits from Democratic state attorneys general and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
In the case Trump v. Barbara, a class action challenge brought by parents of affected children, the ACLU argued before the Supreme Court during oral arguments in April. Cecillia Wang, representing the ACLU, told the justices: "The 14th amendment's fixed bright line rule has contributed to the growth and thriving of our nation. It comes from text and history. It is workable and it prevents manipulation."
Historical Context
The ruling referenced the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott decision, which ruled Black people were not US citizens. The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 during Reconstruction, reversed that decision and conferred citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
The Trump administration argued the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant babies born to parents not lawfully present are not citizens. The executive order specified this applied when neither parent was a US citizen or lawful permanent resident, or if a parent had temporary status. It sought to take effect on February 19, 2025, affecting hundreds of thousands of babies annually.
Arguments and Skepticism
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued on behalf of the administration, emphasizing the concept of "domicile." He claimed those unlawfully or temporarily present lack domicile or allegiance, unlike formerly enslaved people covered by the 14th Amendment. Sauer stated: "Unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations. It demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship."
However, the justices were skeptical. Chief Justice Roberts referred to part of the government's argument as "very quirky," and Justice Kagan said the government used "pretty obscure sources." In the decision, Roberts wrote: "The Court exhaustively canvassed the text and history of the Citizenship Clause and at no point identified any evidence that the ratifiers thought themselves to be imposing a domicile limitation."
Broader Implications
The quest to overturn birthright citizenship has gained traction among some conservatives, though most legal scholars believe the amendment has been interpreted correctly. The administration relied partly on legal arguments from a 19th-century white supremacist, as reported by the Washington Post. John Eastman, a lawyer disbarred in California for his role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, is also a key proponent, according to Politico.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled against Trump on broad emergency tariffs. Trump has repeatedly attacked courts and judges that rule against him.
