The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to restrict automatic citizenship for children born on American soil, handing the administration a major legal setback.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices ruled that the executive order signed by President Trump on January 20, 2025, the opening day of his second term, was invalid.
Five members of the court concluded that the directive conflicted with the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which has traditionally been interpreted as granting citizenship to nearly everyone born in the United States.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the policy could not stand but based his opinion on federal statute rather than the Constitution.
The judgment marks President Trump’s third notable defeat before the nation’s highest court in recent months.
Earlier rulings struck down his broad tariff measures in February and prevented the immediate dismissal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook earlier this week.
Although conservatives hold a 6-3 majority on the bench, including three justices appointed by Trump, the court has not consistently sided with the president on every major dispute.
Delivering the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said the administration had failed to present convincing justification for overturning a constitutional principle that has been recognized for generations.
”Citizenship then and now was the right to have rights, to freely participate in our political community,” Roberts wrote.
He noted that the 14th Amendment was adopted after the Civil War to guarantee equal citizenship, particularly for formerly enslaved people, adding that the court was reaffirming that constitutional commitment.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing that the Constitution permits the president’s proposed interpretation.
The 14th Amendment declares that all individuals born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are American citizens.
President Trump’s order sought to deny automatic citizenship to children whose parents were neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.
Under the proposal, babies born to temporary visitors or migrants living in the country without legal status would no longer receive citizenship at birth.
Writing in dissent, Thomas argued that the amendment was designed primarily to secure citizenship for formerly enslaved Black Americans and did not necessarily extend to the children of foreign nationals temporarily residing in the country.
The directive never took effect after several lower federal courts blocked its implementation shortly after it was issued.
For well over a century, birthright citizenship has generally applied to nearly everyone born in the United States, with only limited exceptions, including children of foreign diplomats.
An immigration law enacted later adopted similar wording concerning individuals “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
The court also relied on its landmark 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which established that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was entitled to U.S. citizenship by birth.
The order faced numerous legal challenges from Democratic-led states and civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, all of which argued that the measure violated longstanding constitutional protections.
Every court that reviewed the policy before it reached the Supreme Court ruled against the administration.
The Supreme Court agreed in December to hear an appeal stemming from New Hampshire, where the ACLU represented several families and children who would have been directly affected had the executive order been enforced.
By: Magdalene Agyeiwaa Sarpong