The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship violates the Fourteenth Amendment, delivering a significant setback to one of the administration's signature immigration initiatives.
The executive order, signed on Trump's first day back in office, sought to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States whose parents were either in the country illegally or only temporarily. The policy was intended to address what the administration described as "birth tourism" and broader concerns over illegal immigration.
Majority: Constitution Guarantees Citizenship at Birth
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country remain protected under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Roberts wrote that such children are "born in the United States" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
"Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth."
He further emphasized the historical purpose of the amendment, writing:
"Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to 'every free-born person in this land.' We keep that promise today."
The majority also rejected the administration's argument that citizenship depends on whether an individual's parents are "domiciled" in the United States.
Roberts wrote:
"If Congress intended to hinge citizenship on each individual's domicile — a question that 'is sometimes a matter of great difficulty to decide' — it is reasonable to expect there would have been at least some discussion of the topic."
He noted that references to domicile were largely absent from the legislative history surrounding both the Civil Rights Act and debates over the Citizenship Clause.
Separate Opinions Reveal Different Legal Views
Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment but dissented in part. While agreeing the executive order cannot stand, Kavanaugh argued that the conflict lies with the federal statute implementing the Fourteenth Amendment rather than with the Constitution itself.
Under his interpretation, Congress could potentially restrict birthright citizenship through legislation, although it has not done so.
Dissents Warn of Long-Term Consequences
Justice Clarence Thomas authored a 91-page dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Thomas wrote:
"The Citizenship Clause 'added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.' Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship. I respectfully dissent."
He argued that the Court had "repurposed the Fourteenth Amendment to protect its own set of preferred rights" and added:
"I am not sure that today's opinion will stand the test of time."
Justice Samuel Alito also issued a separate dissent, describing the ruling as one of the Court's most consequential decisions.
He wrote:
"This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the court has made a serious mistake."
Alito argued the ruling "preserves a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally."
He added:
"If the Fourteenth Amendment required these results, the country would have to live with them or amend the Constitution. But the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the rule the court now imposes on the country. In my judgment, the Court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country's future."
Lawsuit Challenged Executive Order
The executive order faced multiple legal challenges after its issuance. The case before the Supreme Court arose from a nationwide class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of families affected by the policy.
The lawsuit, led by a Honduran woman identified only as "Barbara" to protect her identity, argued that the executive order violated the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship.
Political Reaction
The ruling represents a major legal defeat for Trump's effort to end automatic birthright citizenship through executive action.
House Speaker Mike Johnson expressed disappointment with the Court's decision during a Tuesday press conference.
"I think it subjects the country to serious challenges going forward, and we'll deal with it as a Congress," Johnson said.
While acknowledging the Court's reasoning could be viewed as consistent with a "textualist, originalist view," Johnson argued that "birthing tourism" has been "grossly abused in recent years."
