Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Birthright Citizenship Order

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that an executive order issued by former President Donald Trump seeking to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to non-citizen parents violates the 14th Amendment. The decision upholds birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the Constitution's Citizenship Clause and the 1898 Supreme Court precedent United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

The Executive Order

Former President Trump signed an executive order on January 20, 2025, the first day of his second term, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." The order sought to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States under the following conditions:

• The mother is in the country unlawfully and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident
• The mother has lawful temporary status (such as a student or work visa) and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident

The order asserted that the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause has never universally extended citizenship to everyone born in the U.S., claiming it excludes those not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The directive instructed federal agencies not to issue or accept documents recognizing U.S. citizenship for children born under these circumstances, with the policy applying to babies born more than 30 days after its effective date. The order never took effect, as lower courts blocked it prior to implementation.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the executive order violated the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, stating:

"Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to 'every free-born person in this land.' We keep that promise today."

Majority Opinion

The majority cited the 14th Amendment's language: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The opinion relied on the 1898 precedent United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents are citizens, with limited exceptions for children of foreign diplomats.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred on statutory grounds, stating he did not believe the order violated the Constitution but that it conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act, which Congress could amend.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's concurring opinion argued the 14th Amendment's principles were already core to the nation's identity, not limited to freed slaves.

Dissenting Opinion

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Justice Thomas argued the amendment was being "repurposed for political projects." Justice Alito described the ruling as a "serious mistake" that grants citizenship to individuals who come to the U.S. solely to give birth.

Legal Background and Procedural History

The 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The amendment was enacted after the Civil War to define citizenship broadly, reversing the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship to Black people.

The Wong Kim Ark Precedent (1898)

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese citizens residing in the U.S., was guaranteed citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The Court interpreted "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to confer automatic citizenship on most children born in the U.S., with exceptions for children of foreign diplomats, occupying armies, and Native American tribes (the latter two exceptions no longer apply, as Native Americans gained citizenship in 1924).

Lower Court Proceedings

• Three consolidated cases challenging the directive were previously before the Supreme Court on procedural issues regarding nationwide injunctions
• Following that decision, the ACLU and other groups filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of children at risk of being denied citizenship
• U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante provisionally certified the class and blocked the administration from enforcing the order
• The Trump administration appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which agreed in December to review the directive's legality
• No lower court that considered challenges to the order supported the Trump administration's interpretation of the 14th Amendment

Legal Arguments

Trump Administration's Position

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are present unlawfully or temporarily. Key arguments included:

• Citizenship is guaranteed only to those "completely subject" to the nation's political jurisdiction, owing "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S.
• The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" should be reinterpreted to mean "allegiance"
• Children of parents with temporary status lack sufficient ties to the U.S., and undocumented immigrants are in defiance of the law
• The Wong Kim Ark decision recognized citizenship for children of citizens and foreign nationals with a "permanent domicil and residence"
• Previous interpretations have been "misread" since the mid-20th Century, incentivizing illegal entry and "birth tourism"

Plaintiffs' Position

Lawyers representing the children affected, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argued that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship by birth, irrespective of parents' immigration status, nationality, or domicile, with only narrow exceptions. Key arguments included:

• English common law established citizenship by birth without a domicile requirement
• The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to U.S. law
• The Wong Kim Ark precedent affirms birthright citizenship
• The executive order seeks to overturn a 128-year-old precedent without sufficient justification
• Accepting the administration's arguments would "cast a shadow over the citizenship of millions upon millions of Americans, going back generations"
• Changes to birthright citizenship should be done through a constitutional amendment

Historical Precedent: The John Brown Trial (1859)

During oral arguments, the concept of temporary allegiance was discussed in reference to the 1859 trial of John Brown. Brown led an armed raid into Virginia and was charged with treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia. Although Brown was not a citizen or resident of Virginia, Judge Richard Parker ruled that treason can be committed "wherever allegiance is due," establishing that temporary presence in a state imposed an obligation of temporary allegiance. This trial, which received extensive national coverage, occurred seven years before the 14th Amendment was drafted in 1866.

Potential Impact

Affected Births

Research by the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University's Population Research Institute estimated that the executive order could have affected the following:

• Over 250,000 babies born annually in the U.S.
• 255,000 infants per year
• Up to 320,000 children born each year to undocumented immigrants or those without permanent legal residency

The restrictions would apply not only to individuals present illegally but also to those legally in the United States, such as students and green card applicants.

Long-Term Projections

Population experts suggested that repealing birthright citizenship could lead to an increase of 2.7 million people living illegally in the U.S. by 2045, as these individuals would no longer qualify for citizenship.

Implementation Concerns

Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised questions during earlier proceedings regarding practical implementation, including:

• How federal officials would determine citizenship without birth certificates
• The potential impact on hospitals and state governments
• Logistical challenges of vetting the parents of millions of newborns annually

Federal agencies had issued guidance documents on how individuals would apply for passports and Social Security numbers under the proposed plan.

Reactions

President Donald Trump called the decision "too bad for our country" and urged Congress to pass legislation restricting birthright citizenship, stating, "No long and unwieldy constitutional amendment is necessary."

White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller called it "one of the most destructive and outrageous decisions" in the Court's history.

ACLU Lawyer Cecillia Wang said the decision "reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen."

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said the ruling affirms that "all persons born in the United States are American citizens."

California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the decision "a foundational tenet of American democracy."

New York Attorney General Letitia James described birthright citizenship as "a constitutional guarantee that has defined this nation for generations."

Context of Previous Supreme Court Actions

The ruling marks the second time the Supreme Court has invalidated a major Trump initiative, following a February decision against global tariffs imposed under emergency powers. On the same day as the birthright citizenship ruling, the Court also issued decisions allowing the president greater power to remove officials from independent agencies and blocking the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook on procedural grounds.