In a landmark decision issued on June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed one of the longest-standing principles of American constitutional law: children born in the United States are U.S. citizens at birth, regardless of whether their parents are unlawfully present or only temporarily in the country. In Trump v. Barbara, the Court struck down President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which sought to deny birthright citizenship to certain children born on U.S. soil.

The Court’s decision preserves a constitutional rule that has existed for more than 150 years and provides important clarity for families, employers, and immigration practitioners.

The Court’s Holding

The case centered on the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The administration argued that children born to parents who were unlawfully present or only temporarily present in the United States were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore did not automatically acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.

Writing for a five-justice majority, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected that interpretation. The Court concluded that individuals physically present in the United States—whether they are tourists, students, temporary workers, or undocumented immigrants—are generally subject to U.S. laws and governmental authority. As a result, their U.S.-born children satisfy the constitutional requirements for birthright citizenship.

The Court explained that the only historically recognized exceptions are children born to foreign diplomats and certain historical tribal sovereignty situations.

Why the Court Reached This Result

Rather than focusing on modern immigration policy, the majority grounded its decision in constitutional history.

The Court traced the origins of birthright citizenship to English common law, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the longstanding principle of jus soli—citizenship based on birth within the nation’s territory. The majority also emphasized that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to overturn the Supreme Court’s infamous decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship based on ancestry.

The Court further relied on its 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which has long recognized that children born in the United States are citizens even when their parents are foreign nationals. According to the majority, that precedent has governed constitutional interpretation for more than a century and remains controlling today.

The Court Rejected the Government’s Interpretation

The government argued that birthright citizenship should be limited to children whose parents have permanent legal ties—or domicile—in the United States.

The Court rejected that argument, finding little historical support for reading such a requirement into the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts noted that the constitutional text does not distinguish between lawful and unlawful presence, nor does it condition citizenship on a parent’s immigration status, permanent residence, or intent to remain in the country.

According to the majority, those limitations appear in the Executive Order—not in the Constitution itself.

The Dissenting Opinions

Three justices disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, argued that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended primarily to secure citizenship for formerly enslaved individuals after the Civil War—not to constitutionalize universal birthright citizenship. In his view, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” requires a more complete political allegiance to the United States than merely being physically present within its borders. He contended that children born to parents who are unlawfully present or only temporarily in the country do not satisfy that constitutional requirement.

Justice Samuel Alito also dissented, emphasizing the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which extended citizenship to persons born in the United States who were “not subject to any foreign power.” He argued that this language demonstrates Congress intended to exclude at least some children of foreign nationals from automatic citizenship and that the majority gave insufficient weight to this historical evidence.

Justice Gorsuch filed a separate dissent adopting much of Justice Thomas’s reasoning and criticized the majority for relying too heavily on English common law rather than the original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh took a narrower approach. While he agreed that the Executive Order could not stand under existing Supreme Court precedent—particularly United States v. Wong Kim Ark—he declined to fully endorse the majority’s historical analysis and wrote separately to explain his disagreement with portions of its reasoning.

What This Means Going Forward

For now, the decision preserves the longstanding understanding of birthright citizenship in the United States. Children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants, temporary visa holders, international students, and many other noncitizens continue to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Although the ruling resolves this constitutional challenge to Executive Order 14160, the broader debate over immigration policy is likely to continue. Nevertheless, the Court’s opinion leaves little doubt that any future effort to restrict birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment or a dramatic departure from longstanding Supreme Court precedent.