Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's Birthright-Citizenship Order

On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Trump's executive order that sought to end birthright citizenship — the guarantee that nearly everyone born in the United States is a citizen at birth. In Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365), the Court held, by a vote of 6-3, that the order cannot be reconciled with the Fourteenth Amendment. (Read the opinion)

This article explains what the Court decided, what it means for children born in the United States, and what families should keep in mind. It is general information, not legal advice. If you have questions about your own or your child's citizenship, speak with an immigration attorney.

What the Court Decided

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts — joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson — concluded that children born in the United States to parents who are here unlawfully or temporarily are citizens at birth. As Roberts put it, those children "satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause" — they are "born … in the United States" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." "Under the Constitution," he wrote, "they are citizens at birth."

The decision affirmed the lower courts, which had uniformly blocked the order. It rests on the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, which confers citizenship on anyone "born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." (Fourteenth Amendment)

The Executive Order Behind the Case

President Trump signed the order — Executive Order 14160, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" — on January 20, 2025, shortly after his second inauguration. It provided that babies born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily would not be automatically entitled to citizenship. Although it was slated to take effect 30 days later, it never did: several federal judges blocked it while challenges moved forward.

An earlier, related ruling — Trump v. CASA — limited the power of lower courts to issue nationwide ("universal") injunctions. After that, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire issued a preliminary injunction protecting a class of affected babies, finding the order likely contradicted the Fourteenth Amendment "and the century-old untouched precedent that interprets it." The Supreme Court took up the case and, on June 30, 2026, affirmed that decision against the order.

The Long-Standing Rule the Court Reaffirmed

Roberts traced birthright citizenship back to early English common law — that children born in the country became subjects — a view "adopted with little fanfare after the Revolution." He explained that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 to repudiate the Supreme Court's 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford and to "permanently enshrine" the existing understanding: "A child born on American soil and subject to American law was made an American citizen."

The Court also reaffirmed its 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that a man born in San Francisco to parents of Chinese descent was a U.S. citizen. As Roberts summarized, "the Citizenship Clause incorporated the common law and granted citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States" — a rule understood for the 128 years since to "guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its power." (United States v. Wong Kim Ark)

"Citizenship, then and now," Roberts concluded, "was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community."

The Separate and Dissenting Opinions

The decision was not unanimous in reasoning. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed the order is invalid, but on different grounds — he viewed it as conflicting with a federal statute rather than the Constitution, and noted that Congress has not enacted any exception to birthright citizenship.

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito called the ruling "one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court" and "a serious mistake," arguing the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship only on children who at birth owe allegiance solely to this country. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, also dissented. Gorsuch wrote separately as well. The majority opinion, however, controls.

What This Means for Families

In practical terms, the Court's decision means the long-standing rule stands: a child born in the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the parents' immigration status, consistent with how the Fourteenth Amendment has been applied for well over a century. The executive order that sought to change that cannot be enforced.

A child's U.S. citizenship and a parent's immigration status are separate questions. A U.S.-citizen child does not, by itself, give an undocumented parent legal status — but it is one fact among many that an experienced attorney can weigh when reviewing a family's options. Because immigration enforcement remains active and the law can shift quickly, families with questions should get advice specific to their situation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the Supreme Court end birthright citizenship?

No — the opposite. On June 30, 2026, in Trump v. Barbara, the Court struck down the executive order that sought to end birthright citizenship, holding that children born in the United States to parents who are here unlawfully or temporarily are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.

If my child is born in the U.S., is my child a citizen even if I am undocumented?

Under this ruling and the long-standing reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States and subject to its laws is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the parents' immigration status. For your specific circumstances, confirm with an immigration attorney.

Does my U.S.-citizen child give me legal immigration status?

Not by itself. A child's citizenship and a parent's immigration status are separate legal questions. Whether and how a citizen child may matter to a parent's case depends on many factors — an attorney can review your options.

What was the executive order, and is it in effect?

It was a January 20, 2025 order providing that babies born in the U.S. to parents here illegally or temporarily would not automatically be citizens. It never took effect — courts blocked it — and the Supreme Court has now ruled it cannot be enforced.

I still have questions about my family's citizenship. What should I do?

Speak with an immigration attorney about your specific situation. Carlos Maury Law is a national firm of former U.S. Immigration Judges and can be reached at (213) 769-0050.