The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship on June 30, striking down a 2025 executive order that sought to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented parents. The 6-3 ruling in Trump v. Barbara confirms that children born on U.S. soil remain citizens under the Constitution regardless of their parents' immigration status, with all the benefits that citizenship carries.

The order at the center of the case was President Donald Trump's January 2025 executive action, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, and Democracy Defenders Fund brought the successful challenge on behalf of children who would have been denied citizenship under the order.

"The court's decision reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen," said ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang, who argued the case at the Supreme Court. "A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat. Our brave clients and our legal team stand with millions of people around our country who spoke up for one of our most cherished rights. The Constitution's guarantee of birthright citizenship stands strong."

"This ruling affirms a fundamental and inescapable principle: that everyone born in the United States is entitled to the same rights and protections," said Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "Bigotry and bluster cannot change that. And the president cannot rewrite the Constitution. This ruling should make that abundantly clear."

Who voted how

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed that the executive order violated the 14th Amendment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

Anoo D. Vyas, a professor of constitutional law at UMass Dartmouth's School of Law, said the practical effect was a 5-4 split. "The decision effectively was 5-4 … technically 6-3, but really 5-4, because Justice Kavanaugh actually sided with the dissent on the constitutional issue," he told O Jornal. "Frankly, I thought this would be 7-2."

Vyas described the ruling as significant because the court chose to address the issue as a broad constitutional question rather than on narrower legal grounds. "This is a big decision," he said. "They didn't have to make this broad declaration that a child automatically becomes a citizen if they are born on U.S. soil under the Constitution. They could have decided it perhaps on narrower grounds, but it was decided as a constitutional issue. And because it's a constitutional issue, that's the whole ballgame."

For families, Vyas said, the ruling confirms the existing interpretation of the 14th Amendment as adopted in 1868. They should not expect any immediate changes in how citizenship is recognized or documented.

The fight over the Citizenship Clause

The central disagreement turned on the 14th Amendment's phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The majority read the language as supporting automatic citizenship for those born in the United States. The dissenting justices argued the phrase should incorporate a concept of "domicile" — a parent's intention to permanently reside in the country.

The majority opinion also relied heavily on the legal doctrine of jus soli, Latin for "right of the soil," which traces its roots to English common law. The court concluded that the principle was firmly established when the 14th Amendment was adopted and remains a foundation of U.S. citizenship law.

What could come next

If the dissenting view were adopted in the future, Vyas said, automatic citizenship could be limited for some children. The dissent clearly questioned citizenship for children born to parents temporarily in the country but left unresolved whether children born to undocumented immigrants who intend to remain would qualify.

"Suppose that a parent just temporarily comes here for the purpose of giving birth and then heads back to live permanently in another country," Vyas said. "That likely would not meet the definition of domicile, and thus, citizenship would not be proper for the child." He noted that Justice Thomas's 91-page dissent addressed the question only in a footnote.

The ruling also limits Congress's ability to change birthright citizenship through legislation, because the court grounded its decision in a broad constitutional foundation. Vyas cautioned, however, that a future court with a different composition could revisit the issue and alter its interpretation.

President Trump criticized the decision on Truth Social and called on Congress to act. "Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship," he wrote. "They will have my Complete and Total Support!"

The full opinion is available on the Supreme Court's website.