The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Tuesday that children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented or only temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Constitution, striking down President Trump’s executive order, attempting to end birthright citizenship for those children. The ruling comes as a significant loss for Trump’s administration.
On January 20, 2025, Trump issued Executive Order 14160, which the administration said “restores the original meaning” of the Citizenship Clause, providing that children of temporary visitors and undocumented immigrants aren’t U.S. citizens by birth. The order directed federal agencies to not issue or accept citizenship documents for children born more than 30 days after the order took effect.
Trump tried to use an executive order to say that if your parents were not U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents when you were born here you wouldn’t get automatic citizenship anymore, reversing a settled law that has been in place for 150 years.
The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause ratified in 1868, says “anyone born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a citizen. This legal fight hinged on what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” actually means. Trump’s order had argued that it excludes children of undocumented or temporary immigrants. Challengers argued it means anyone that is physically present in and subject to U.S. law, which is nearly everyone born here. There are two specific exceptions to this clause, as it does not apply to children of foreign diplomats, and children born to members of sovereign tribal nations.
This ruling did not create any new laws, it just reaffirmed existing law going back to 1898 and the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. The Court upheld the status quo with their ruling on Tuesday.
The court voted 5-4 that Trump’s executive order was unconstitutional, specifically violating the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship clause. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett and Jackson. Thomas filed a dissenting joined by Gorsuch, who also filed his own dissenting opinion. Alito filed his own dissenting opinion as well separately from Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas. Kavanaugh filed an opinion where he concurred in the judgment and dissented in part. Justice Amy Coney Barret joined the liberal justices again, after voting against Watson v. RNC, an interesting piece of context to consider.
Though the vote was 5-4, this vote reflects the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court, it does not reflect uncertainty in the underlying law, the historical and precedential basis for birthright citizenship is clear and well established.
-Elijah Iraheta, Editor in Chief, Saber News
