By By Elizabeth Ugbo
The United States Supreme Court has ruled against President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for some children born in the United States. The decision, delivered by a 6-3 majority on Wednesday, upheld lower court rulings that found the order unconstitutional. The case centered on whether children born in the US to parents without permanent legal status automatically qualify for citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The judgment marks a significant setback for Trump’s immigration agenda.
Court reaffirms constitutional protection
The ruling upheld the long-established interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants US citizenship to anyone born on American soil and subject to the country’s jurisdiction.
Trump signed the executive order on January 20, 2025, shortly after returning to office. The order aimed to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the US whose parents were undocumented immigrants or held temporary legal status.
However, the Supreme Court agreed with lower courts that the order violated the Constitution.
Roberts cites history and legal precedent
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts traced the principle of birthright citizenship from English common law through the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868.
He also relied on the landmark 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision, which confirmed citizenship for a man born in the US to Chinese parents.
Roberts rejected the Trump administration’s interpretation of the Constitution.
“The trouble is that there is scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view,” he wrote.
He added that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended its protections to apply broadly.
“The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to every free-born person in this land. We keep that promise today.”
Roberts also dismissed claims that Congress intended citizenship to depend on an individual’s permanent domicile.
He noted that lawmakers had several opportunities, including during the drafting of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, to restrict birthright citizenship but never did so.
Court rejects Trump administration’s arguments
Lawyers representing the Trump administration argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” only covered children whose parents were US citizens or lawful permanent residents.
They further claimed that the 14th Amendment primarily aimed to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people after the Civil War.
The administration also argued that the United States v. Wong Kim Ark ruling did not establish the modern understanding of birthright citizenship.
Their case relied heavily on the meanings of terms such as “subject to the jurisdiction,” “natural allegiance,” and “permanently domiciled.”
The Supreme Court rejected those arguments.
Justice Jackson defends broad interpretation
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a concurring opinion, challenged the claim that the amendment applied only to freed slaves.
She argued that its language reflected long-standing American legal principles.
Jackson wrote that Congress deliberately chose universal language while acknowledging the sacrifices made by Black Americans during the Civil War.
Justices split 6-3
Roberts was joined by conservative Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh.
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan also supported the majority opinion.
The decision reaffirmed decades of constitutional precedent on birthright citizenship.
Trump calls for congressional action
Following the ruling, Trump criticised the judgment and urged Republicans in Congress to pursue legislation limiting birthright citizenship.
“Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship,” Trump wrote.
He added that lawmakers would have his “Complete and Total Support.”
Legal experts, however, believe such legislation would face significant constitutional hurdles. The Supreme Court’s opinion suggested that changing birthright citizenship would likely require a constitutional amendment rather than an ordinary law.
