By Megan Leonhardt
The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump's attempt to limit birthright citizenship in the U.S.
The court's majority ruled that Trump's executive order violated the Constitution. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joining the opinion in full.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed an opinion concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented. The majority and dissenting opinions in this case totaled 194 pages.
"Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and are citizens at birth under the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause," Roberts wrote for the majority opinion.
The case, Trump v. Barbara, was brought after Trump issued an executive order in January 2025 that limited automatic birthright citizenship to only those babies born in the U.S. to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
Trump's order was challenged almost immediately and has never gone into effect after a federal judge blocked it from taking effect. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in early April.
At the heart of the case is the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which confers citizenship on anyone "born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
"Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to "every free-born person in this land, " Roberts wrote. "We keep that promise today."
Tuesday's ruling drew heavily from the landmark 1898 decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the court found that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen because he was born in San Francisco. His parents, both Chinese citizens, resided in the U.S. at the time.
"What the Court held in Wong Kim Ark was simple: the citizenship clause incorporated the common law and granted citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States. Not surprisingly, then, in the 128 years since, we have repeatedly understood the rule of Wong Kim Ark to guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its power," Roberts wrote. "We see no reason to depart from that view today."
Roberts' opinion also emphasized that the 14th Amendment was explicitly drafted to overturn the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford — to firmly establish that birthplace, rather than bloodline or race, dictated U.S. citizenship.
The majority rejected the government's argument that birthright citizenship should be limited to those permanently domiciled in the U.S. "Of course, domicile was relevant to naturalization and expatriation. But that by no means suggests it was a prerequisite to national citizenship at birth," Roberts wrote.
The majority concluded the Fourteenth Amendment's phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction," broadly refers to "the power of the United States to govern those within its territory," or within its borders. Because visitors and immigrants must obey U.S. laws, the court found that they are subject to its jurisdiction.
The majority opinion, although expected, was a total loss for Trump and efforts to rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment, as it held birthright citizenship was a constitutional issue and could not be ended by executive order.
"The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country," Trump wrote in a Truth Social post after the ruling.
"But we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process," the president wrote. "No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!"
Kavanaugh agreed with the majority that Trump's executive order must be blocked, but said that was due to the fact that it violated current federal immigration statutes, rather than constitutional rights. He contended that Congress does have the authority to pass legislation that restricts automatic birthright citizenship in the future.
Several lawmakers, including Republican Senators Eric Schmitt from Missouri and Rick Scott from Florida, said Tuesday that Congress must respond and draft legislation restricting automatic birthright citizenship.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) said the decision meant Congress would have to take up the issue. "I'm very disappointed in that outcome, " Johnson said. "It subjects the country to serious challenges going forward and we'll have to deal with it as a Congress."
In his 91-page dissenting opinion, Justice Thomas, joined by Gorsuch, argued that the original public meaning of domicile referred to a person's permanent legal home, rather than where they were physically located at birth. Moreover, he contended that the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to those who may retain allegiances to other countries.
"I am not sure that today's opinion will stand the test of time. The citizenship clause 'added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship,' Thomas wrote, citing previous case law. "Today's opinion devalues that citizenship."
Tuesday's ruling has little direct impact on the financial markets or even immediate effects on the broader economy. But advocates for birthright citizenship had argued that allowing Trump's executive order could have proven to be a bureaucratic nightmare to confirm citizenship going forward.
By upholding automatic birthright citizenship, the court prevented that outcome.
Write to Megan Leonhardt at megan.leonhardt@barrons.com
This content was created by Barron's, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. Barron's is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.