US Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, dealing blow to Trump immigration policy

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship — the automatic granting of citizenship to children born on American soil — dealing a fresh blow to his administration's aggressive anti-immigration agenda. The ruling upheld the principle of jus soli, or place-of-birth citizenship, and marks another significant political setback for Trump, following the court's ruling against his reciprocal tariffs in February.

The court upheld a broad interpretation of birthright citizenship in a 6-3 decision, according to the Associated Press and Reuters.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, found that Trump's executive order violated the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

"Citizenship is, and always has been, the right to have rights — the right to participate freely in our political community," Roberts wrote, adding that the framers of the 14th Amendment "extended that promise to all persons born in this land." He added: "Today, we keep that promise."

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the 14th Amendment "was designed to secure equal rights for freed Black Americans," and said the court had "added another page to the sad history of the 14th Amendment."

Although the court leans conservative 6-3, the majority in this case included not only the three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — but also conservative Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, both of whom recognized birthright citizenship as constitutionally protected.

Conservative Justices Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito dissented. Fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority on the grounds that existing federal law already grants citizenship to the children in question, though he stopped short of declaring Trump's executive order unconstitutional.

The court's opinion ran to 194 pages, reflecting the wide public interest and legal significance of the case.

Trump signed the executive order on his first day in office, Jan. 20 last year, directing that children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas would no longer receive birthright citizenship.

The order covered not only children of undocumented immigrants but also those born to parents holding legal but temporary status — including student, work and tourist visas.

In response, 22 states led by Democratic governors, along with Washington, D.C., filed a lawsuit arguing the order violated the 14th Amendment. Lower courts at both the trial and appellate levels found it unconstitutional and issued injunctions blocking its enforcement, meaning no state has implemented the citizenship ban to date.

Ratified in 1868, shortly after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment establishes that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens. Under longstanding interpretation, children born on US soil to parents who are in the country temporarily or without legal status have automatically acquired US citizenship.

Trump has long argued that the original intent of birthright citizenship was to guarantee citizenship to Black slaves and their children after the Civil War — not to benefit wealthy Chinese nationals who travel to the United States to give birth, or undocumented immigrants.

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court on April 1, the Trump administration contended that citizenship cannot be granted solely on the basis of birth on US soil, and that factors such as a parent's legal status and allegiance to the United States must be considered.

Trump himself attended the oral arguments that day — the first sitting president to do so — lending his personal weight to the administration's position, though he did not speak.

Before the ruling came down, Trump posted a link on his Truth Social account to an article from the conservative outlet Just the News suggesting his efforts to end birthright citizenship would ultimately succeed regardless of the Supreme Court's decision.

The Supreme Court also struck down limits on political party spending in elections on Tuesday. In a case led by Vice President JD Vance and other Republicans, the court ruled that caps on the amount political parties can spend on election campaigns violate the First Amendment's protection of free speech.

Trump hailed the decision on Truth Social as "a BIG WIN for the Republican Party, and more importantly, the First Amendment."