The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the concept of birthright citizenship, a long-established constitutional right that guarantees citizenship to nearly every child born in the country.
Tuesday’s court ruling is expected to be a blow to President Donald Trump, who has sought to overturn birthright citizenship through an executive order.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
But in Tuesday’s ruling, a majority of the court ruled that President Trump’s actions violated the 14th Amendment.
The law grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” except children of diplomats.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights and to participate freely in our political community. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘all persons born free in this land,'” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority decision. “Today I will keep that promise.”
What is birthright citizenship? What did the court say in its ruling? How would President Trump react? This brief explains these questions and more.
What is birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship is a concept that grants citizenship to everyone born in the United States, with a handful of very narrow exceptions. Children of foreign diplomats are particularly excluded.
The concept was formalized in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was added after the Civil War.
This law was written to ensure that black people, including former slaves, enjoyed the equal protections afforded by citizenship.
Multiple cases in the Supreme Court have since upheld that right. One important precedent was set in an 1898 case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
The case involved a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents. After a trip to visit family in China, he was denied re-entry to the United States because he was not a U.S. citizen. But the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Wong was indeed a U.S. citizen and that his travels did not negate that fact.
What is the difference between natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens?
Anyone born in the United States automatically acquires citizenship through citizenship of their place of birth.
A naturalized citizen is someone who was not originally a citizen of the country, but who has acquired citizenship through one of the available legal means.
However, once they become naturalized citizens, they enjoy full and equal rights with mainland-born U.S. citizens.
The Fourteenth Amendment protects the rights of both birthright and naturalized citizens and prohibits the government from attempting to “deprive either of them of their privileges or immunities.”
What does the 14th Amendment say about this?
The Fourteenth Amendment consists of five parts. However, the first section focuses on citizenship.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are nationals of the United States and of the countries in which they reside. No State shall enact or enforce any law abridging the privileges or immunities of its citizens; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or deny to any person within the scope of its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
What led you to become a Supreme Court judge?
Trump, a Republican, promised to abolish birthright citizenship while campaigning for a second term in the 2024 presidential election.
In 2023, for example, he posted a video statement on social media claiming that birthright citizenship contributes to the “invasion” of immigrants into the United States.
“Things like this bring millions of people to our country,” Trump said. “My policies will block continued strong incentives for illegal immigration, stop further immigration, and encourage the many aliens Joe Biden brought into the country illegally to return to their home countries.”
Restricting immigration was a key pillar of President Trump’s platform for his second term, and on his first day in office, on January 20, 2025, he signed an executive order barring certain children from obtaining birthright citizenship.
This included babies born to illegal immigrants, as well as babies who were in the country legally but whose parents were not permanent residents at the time of their birth.
But critics quickly challenged the order in court, saying it would effectively render some young children stateless.
The executive order ultimately never took effect, and a lower court blocked its enforcement.
What does the U.S. Supreme Court decision say?
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court invalidated the 2025 executive order in a case called Trump v. Barbara.
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by former President George W. Bush, wrote the majority decision.
He noted that the 14th Amendment does not support President Trump’s view of limiting birthright citizenship to children of existing citizens and permanent residents.
“If Congress intended to limit U.S. citizenship to the children of persons domiciled in the United States, the plain language of the Citizenship Clause did not convey that intent,” Roberts wrote.
He pointed out that the 1898 Wong Kim Ark incident established a precedent that continues to this day.
“In the 128 years since then, we have repeatedly understood Wong Kim Ark’s rule to guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and under the influence of its power,” Roberts wrote. “I see no reason to depart from that view today.”
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett and three left-leaning members of the court (Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan) joined Roberts in his opinion.
But Brett Kavanaugh, one of the six justices who formed the majority, disagreed with Roberts’ rationale.
He argued that it is not the Fourteenth Amendment, but rather the U.S. code, that guarantees birthright citizenship.
Kavanaugh agreed with the overall outcome of the case, but left open the possibility that Congress could change federal law to exclude children of temporary or undocumented immigrants, as President Trump attempted with an executive order.
Who on the Supreme Court disagreed?
Tuesday’s ruling was dissented by three conservative justices: Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Justice Samuel Alito.
In his 91-page dissent, Thomas argued that Trump’s restrictions were justified.
“Today, the court took the unusual step of holding unconstitutional on its face the executive order that excludes the children of temporary alien visitors and undocumented immigrants from citizenship,” Thomas wrote.
Thomas argued that the court has strayed from the original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was to secure the rights of freed blacks after the abolition of slavery.
How will Trump react?
President Trump has said he will seek a path forward despite the court’s latest ruling, suggesting Congress could address the issue without amending the U.S. Constitution, a complex and lengthy process.
“The Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, which is too bad for our country, but with the support of the President, we can easily make up for it through legislation in Congress,” Trump said in a social media post.
“We don’t need a long and unwieldy constitutional amendment! Congress should start working today to end costly and unfair birthright citizenship for our country. They have my full and total support!”
But legal experts say changing the meaning of the 14th Amendment would require changes to the Constitution.
What else did the Supreme Court rule?
Tuesday marked the last day of the Supreme Court’s 2025-2026 term. It normally adjourns to hold discussions and announce important decisions until October.
Many of the most important decisions are made on the last day of the semester. For example, on Tuesday, the Supreme Court also ruled to uphold a state ban on transgender girls from participating on girls’ sports teams in public schools.
The country’s highest court also struck down limits on the amount of money political parties can spend on coordinating candidates, further rolling back rules aimed at limiting the influence of money in American politics.
