The Supreme Court on Tuesday reaffirmed birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, ruling 6-3 that children born in the United States are citizens even when their parents are in the country unlawfully or temporarily. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said such children are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore covered by the Citizenship Clause.
The decision rejected President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order directing federal agencies to deny citizenship to certain U.S.-born children of noncitizens. The administration argued that the amendment’s jurisdiction language applies only to people with lawful residence or domicile in the United States. Roberts wrote that the constitutional text does not include such limits and that historical sources support citizenship for those born under U.S. authority and protection.
The majority relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which recognized citizenship for a U.S.-born child of noncitizen parents who were not diplomats or foreign officials. Lower federal courts had previously blocked Trump’s order, citing that precedent and the amendment’s wording.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Thomas argued that the majority misread the amendment’s original purpose, which he said was focused on securing rights for formerly enslaved people. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately, saying the constitutional question is difficult and suggesting Congress could address potential exceptions through legislation or amendment.
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor responded to Thomas’s historical account, emphasizing that the Reconstruction Amendments were broader measures against caste and subordination.
Civil rights groups that challenged the order welcomed the ruling. Aarti Kohli of the Asian Law Caucus said the decision confirmed that presidents cannot rewrite the Constitution. Thomas Wolf of the Brennan Center called it correct but cautioned against viewing it as defining the term.