The US Supreme Court has ruled that children born in the United States are entitled to citizenship under the Constitution, rejecting President Donald Trump's attempt to end the long-established policy through executive action.

Get today's headlines by email

Court rejects executive order

In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts said that children born in the US to parents who are in the country unlawfully or on a temporary basis are citizens from birth under the 14th Amendment.

Trump had sought to narrow the constitutional guarantee by arguing that children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary visitors were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore should not automatically receive citizenship.

The ruling marks a significant defeat for the president's immigration agenda and preserves a constitutional principle that has been in place for more than 150 years.

Writing for the majority, Roberts said the framers of the 14th Amendment had extended the promise of citizenship to "every free-born person in this land".

"Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights – to freely participate in our political community," he wrote, adding: "We keep that promise today."

Trump vows to continue fight

Reacting on Truth Social, Trump described the decision as "too bad" and pledged to continue efforts to end birthright citizenship through Congress rather than by constitutional amendment.

"No long and unwieldy constitutional amendment is necessary," he wrote. "Congress should today start work on ending expensive, and unfair to our country, birthright citizenship."

The United States has recognised birthright citizenship since 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted following the Civil War. Originally intended to secure the rights of formerly enslaved people, the amendment states that all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the country.

Sharp division among justices

Three conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito – dissented.

Justice Thomas argued that the 14th Amendment was being used beyond its original purpose, saying it had been "repurposed for political projects" and that the formerly enslaved people it was designed to protect "were Americans" who owed no allegiance to another country.

Justice Alito described the majority's decision as a "serious mistake", arguing it grants citizenship to almost anyone born in the United States, including children whose parents travel to the country specifically to give birth before returning home.

The case carried particular importance for Trump, who made a rare appearance at the Supreme Court during oral arguments in April.

Political reaction

White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller criticised the ruling, calling it "one of the most destructive and outrageous decisions" in the court's history.

Writing on X, he said: "American citizenship is not the birthright of the world. No provision of the Constitution can be read to require our national self-obliteration."

Democrats and civil rights groups welcomed the outcome.

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said the Supreme Court had upheld both the Constitution and longstanding legal precedent by confirming that everyone born in the United States is an American citizen.

Dariely Rodriguez, chief counsel at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said the judgment reaffirmed a principle that has existed for more than a century.

"Anyone born on American soil, regardless of the legal status of their parents, is born an American citizen," she said, adding that the decision demonstrated the country had "endured an incredible test of our collective will as a nation and have prevailed."

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 1 July 2026

View full article

Didn't the left refer to SCOTUS as the MAGA court?

My comment in the NY Times published BEFORE the oral hearings:

There have been comments that the 14th amendment as interpreted for birthrights when passed made sense as travel to US for short term was near impossible but now there are birth-in- America travel packages.

That the 2nd amendment was passed when there were only muzzle loader flintlocks but now covers AK-47s doesn't seem to bother the same persons.

NB From The Hill:

Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Alito all dissented. Justice Brett Kavanaugh disagreed with the court’s ruling, but he voted to block the administration’s executive order under federal law.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5947944-alito-dissent-birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-ruling/

Sad day for the US.

Only way to stop it now , is to bar pregnant women from entry.

9 minutes ago, FlorC said:

Sad day for the US.

Only way to stop it now , is to bar pregnant women from entry.

This will never happen. The Democrats will fight tooth and nail against not allowing pregnant women from third world countries entry into the USA. They welcome the third world invasion.

22 minutes ago, FlorC said:

Sad day for the US.

Only way to stop it now , is to bar pregnant women from entry.

U.S. immigration officers (CBP) can stop pregnant women from entering, specifically if they suspect the traveler is coming to the U.S. primarily to give birth and secure citizenship for the child, a practice known as "birth tourism". However, pregnancy is not an automatic ban if you are visiting for valid tourism, business, or medical reasons.

Although there are no specific regulations prohibiting pregnant foreign nationals from entering the United States, entry is allowed or denied at the discretion of the admitting U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officer. If the CBP officer determines that you are likely to become a ward of the government (meaning that the government must provide medical care because you do not have medical coverage), you can be denied entry.

https://www.help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article1838?language=en_US

1 - Have any 'birthright immigrants' caused as much harm to the reputation of the United States as 'original' Americans?
2 - Have any 'birthright immigrants' fought for the country they were born in, a country which now wants to dis-own them? I'm assuming that if they have an American birth certificate they are eligible for service if that is the career they choose?

34 minutes ago, Mr Awesome said:

This will never happen. The Democrats will fight tooth and nail against not allowing pregnant women from third world countries entry into the USA. They welcome the third world invasion.

Nonsense if you are born here ya got a shot at work and the possibility of your labors amounting to something.sorry but trumps sharpie is not mightier than the constitution.This is a constitutional issue not partisan one.

57 minutes ago, FlorC said:

Sad day for the US.

Only way to stop it now , is to bar pregnant women from entry.

Denying entry has always been available in these cases.

6 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

Didn't the left refer to SCOTUS as the MAGA court?

Even the MAGA court doesn't want to rule that immigrant babies aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States of America.

That would give them little brown babies equal rights with the lawless, untouchable one at the top.

UN-POSSIBLE

I think even in their little twisted minds they saw the unintended consequences from that ruling might explode in their racist faces. 😅

1 hour ago, Mr Awesome said:

This will never happen. The Democrats will fight tooth and nail against not allowing pregnant women from third world countries entry into the USA. They welcome the third world invasion.

I have read this line of thinking before the founding of the USA (although not with the Democrat party reference, necessarily).

1 hour ago, Mr Awesome said:

32 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Denying entry has always been available in these cases.

As you say this has Always been an option !! but in Practice very hard to stop !!

Anchor babies migration has been going on for a hundred years, not about to change soon in that respect - but a Constitutional Amendment obolishing the statute would be obsolute. Then again, if another party took control of both houses, they could vote to restart it again. I for one agree with current law, but it needs to be refined to read “Both parents must be in US Legally, one must be an American citizen, the other can be foreigner in order for the child to be a US Citizen at birth. Key phrase both have to be in country legally. Peace

8 hours ago, webfact said:

designed to protect "were Americans" who owed no allegiance to another country.

A new born in America of foreign parent(s) could hardly be suspected of owing allegiance to another country.

9 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

Didn't the left refer to SCOTUS as the MAGA court?

Only when it suits them, it works both ways depending on who is in office.

21 minutes ago, thailand49 said:

Only when it suits them, it works both ways depending on who is in office.

(The Supreme Court majority) usually pride themselves on being "textualists" and "originalists." They consider those the correct positions.

Except in this case, of course.

Although not an American I find the whole subject of the Constitution fascinating in terms of how a set of values created 250 years ago applies in the modern world. What I will say is that this Constitution contributed over those past 250 years into making USA the great country that it is. There now seems to be an urgent need to undo parts of it that do not fit with a certain agenda. As a previous poster said, the Second Amendment was passed for muzzle loading flintlocks but now embraces AK47s but I don’t see those wishing to change birthrights pushing for modernising the 2nd, while a case could be made for both.

There will be a lot of huffing and puffing, but the 14th amendment won't be changed.

The only option now is to try and ram through new laws that only need a simple majority.....but if they conflict in any way with the constitution they will be struck down by the judiciary.

A large part of the decision, particularly with Kavanaugh, is, even if the current birthright protocol can be shown to be incorrect as regards Supreme Court rulings and subsequent legislation, is an Executive Order the legitimate way to change it.

32 minutes ago, JerryM said:

A large part of the decision, particularly with Kavanaugh, is, even if the current birthright protocol can be shown to be incorrect as regards Supreme Court rulings and subsequent legislation, is an Executive Order the legitimate way to change it.

An executive order is not a legitimate way to change the U.S. Constitution. Under Article V of the Constitution, a president has no authority to alter constitutional law through executive order, a fact reinforced by the Supreme Court.

Changing or amending the U.S. Constitution requires a 2 step processes

Congressional Vote or Constitutional Convention

then to ratify it State Legislatures or State Conventions Trump does not have the numbers to do this ! that is why the executive order

A sad day for Democracy.

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

A sad day for Democracy.

It was a good day in showing that the President cannot change some things just because 'I said so'.

A sad day for Democracy.

But a great day for Democrats. Who depend on the Free Stuff crowd for their votes.

That's why they won't be successful at amending the 14th...

2 minutes ago, JerryM said:

It was a good day in showing that the President cannot change some things just because 'I said so'.

100% correct Trump was trying to change the American constitution on an executive order because he did not have the numbers

Funny that Trump makes such absurd attempts, considering that he has always married women of foreign origin.

But I have often noticed many westerners married to foreign women, tend to be the most mouthy xenophobics or racists. A bit like they are trying to divert from the fact that they are engaged with a foreign woman and feel embarassed maybe ?

11 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

100% correct Trump was trying to change the American constitution on an executive order because he did not have the numbers

The March 2025 IEEPA Tariff Executive Order: Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, President Trump issued an executive order on March 3, 2025.

All IEEPA-based tariffs imposed in early 2025 were officially terminated. The action follows a February 20, 2026 Supreme Court decision (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump) ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president authority to impose tariffs

Denying entry has always been available in these cases.

Seriously? Do you really think they can deny entry to a woman who looks pregnant without getting sued?

100% correct Trump was trying to change the American constitution on an executive order because he did not have the numbers

If you believe that, you have an ankle deep understanding of the issue.

I'm with Thomas and Alito on this one...

7 minutes ago, impulse said:

I'm with Thomas and Alito on this one...

I'm with Kavanaugh and ever since the orals.