Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a majority that includes Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett and Jackson, holds that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship regardless of parents’ immigration status, and that Congress cannot alter that guarantee through ordinary legislation.
The Supreme Court of the United States on Monday held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States irrespective of whether their parents are in the country unlawfully or only temporarily, striking down President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to deny such citizenship.
In a 5-4 constitutional ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in part in the judgment and dissented in part, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
Background
The case, Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Barbara et al., arose from President Trump’s Executive Order No. 14160, issued on January 20, 2025, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order declared that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and are therefore not entitled to citizenship under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Several parents challenged the order on behalf of their children. A federal district court provisionally certified a nationwide class of children who would be denied citizenship under the order and preliminarily restrained its enforcement. The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment.
The Court’s Holding
Framing the issue as whether the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present, the Court answered in the affirmative.
“The Citizenship Clause must be understood in light of its historical context, from the English common law to the widespread condemnation of the Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford.” - Supreme Court of the United States
The Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are nevertheless “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Kavanaugh agreed that the executive order was invalid but took a narrower view of the constitutional question. According to his separate opinion, the order should be struck down under federal statutory law rather than because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result, while the judgment invalidating the executive order commanded a majority, the Court’s constitutional holding that the Fourteenth Amendment itself guarantees birthright citizenship was decided by a 5-4 majority.
The ruling also makes clear that Congress cannot redefine the scope of the Citizenship Clause through ordinary legislation, leaving a constitutional amendment as the only route to alter the guarantee of birthright citizenship.
Case Details
- Case Title: Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Barbara et al.
- Court: Supreme Court of the United States
- Bench: Chief Justice John Roberts (majority); Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson (joined majority); Justice Brett Kavanaugh (concurred in part, dissented in part); Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch (dissented)
- Date of Order: June 29, 2026 (Monday)
.jpeg)
