On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major decision in Trump v. Barbara, holding that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
The case challenged Executive Order No. 14160, which attempted to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who were undocumented or only temporarily present (on a work or tourist visa, for example). The President argued these children were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. under the 14th Amendment, so they should not automatically obtain U.S. citizenship at birth.
In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Roberts, the Court struck down the order. The Court affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire’s preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the Executive Order. It held that children born in the U.S. to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and are entitled to citizenship at birth under the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which states, “All persons born or naturalized I the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The Court grounded the decision in the common law history of citizenship, the rejection of Dred Scott v. Standford (1857) (holding that Black Americans, enslaved or free, were not U.S. citizens and had no standing to sue in Federal Court) and the precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (holding that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents who were barred from becoming U.S. citizens was nonetheless a U.S. citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause).
Roberts was joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson. Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment but dissented in part, suggesting the order violates federal statute (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a)) but not the Constitution. Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito each wrote or joined dissents.
Kavanaugh and Alito, in their dissents, suggested that Congress could pass legislation narrowing birthright citizenship going forward. Thomas appeared to rely on “intent originalism” (speculating about what the drafters of the Constitution intended to accomplish when they were writing it, rather than relying on the plain meaning of what they wrote), writing an analysis of the history surrounding relevant decisions and claiming that the 14th Amendment was originally meant only to apply to the children of formerly enslaved Black Americans. Gorsuch noted his doubts about whether the order could apply to children of undocumented parents who are permanently settled in the U.S. as opposed to temporary visitors, a significant departure from Thomas’ dissent.
Trump’s response to the ruling has varied from his initial suggestion, based on Kavanagh’s dissent, that Congress could easily enact legislation to end birthright citizenship, to a plan to seek a rehearing of the decision. Trump’s most recent comment, from early July, appeared triggered by old billboards in Texas and Mexico that advertised birth packages in the U.S. to facilitate birthright citizenship, inspiring Trump to again demand a rehearing of the case.
For now, the Court’s decision provides clarity. Birthright citizenship remains the law of the land. A child born in the United States obtains U.S. citizenship at birth even if the child’s parents are undocumented or are in the United States temporarily. However, the decision does not resolve every citizenship-related issue currently facing immigrants and naturalized citizens. The ruling in Trump v. Barbara protects the core of birthright citizenship, but it does not eliminate the need to carefully monitor citizenship, naturalization, and documentation issues in individual cases.
