In a landmark decision issued on June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) struck down President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship and reaffirmed that children born in the United States are citizens regardless of whether their parents are unlawfully present or temporarily in the country. The Court ruled that such children are both “born in the United States” and “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
The Executive Order
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issue Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order sought to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to certain children born in the United States when:
- Their mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident; or
- Their mother was lawfully present only on a temporary basis and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Multiple lawsuits challenged the order, arguing that it violated both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. A federal district court blocked implementation of the policy, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
The Court’s Decision
In a 6-3 ruling, the Court affirmed the lower court’s decision and held that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded:
“Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present here are subject to the Nation’s jurisdiction. They satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause: they are ‘born . . . in the United States’ and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth.”
The majority consisted of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, Jackson, and Kavanaugh. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment but disagreed with portions of the majority’s constitutional reasoning.
Reliance on the Fourteenth Amendment and Historical Precedent
The Court conducted an extensive review of:
- English common law principles of jus soli (citizenship by birth on sovereign territory)
- The history surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment
- The Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark
The majority concluded that the Citizenship Clause was intended to establish a broad rule of birthright citizenship and that its limited historical exceptions apply only to narrow categories such as:
- Children of foreign diplomats
- Certain historical tribal sovereignty situations
- Persons born outside U.S. sovereign control
The Court rejected the argument that citizenship depends on a parent’s immigration status, domicile, or lawful presence. It noted that concepts such as “mother,” “father,” “lawful,” and “temporary” do not appear in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Erickson Insights and Analysis
This is one of the most consequential immigration decisions issued by the Supreme Court in recent decades. The Court’s ruling effectively ends the administration’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship through executive action and confirms that any effort to alter the scope of citizenship recognized by the Fourteenth Amendment would face significant constitutional obstacles. It preserves the legal framework that has governed citizenship determinations for generations and avoids substantial uncertainty regarding the status of future U.S.-born children.
Erickson Immigration Group will continue monitoring developments and sharing updates as more news is available. Please contact your employer or EIG attorney if you have questions about anything we’re reporting above or if you have case-specific questions.