The US Supreme Court ruled against former President Donald Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship, marking a significant defeat for a key element of his immigration policy. In a 6-3 decision, the court found that denying automatic citizenship to children born on American soil to parents who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

Trump had issued an executive order early in his administration declaring that such children should not be considered US citizens. His attempt was the first major judicial challenge to the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause in more than a century. The amendment, ratified after the Civil War, guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” As Chief Justice John Roberts explained in the majority opinion, citizenship extends “the right to have rights” to everyone born on US soil, a promise that remains fundamental today.

The ruling came from a court that maintains a 6-3 conservative majority, a bench that generally has been supportive of Trump’s legal positions, making the decision particularly notable. The court emphasized the framers’ intent to ensure that individuals born in the country are included fully in the political community, rejecting the president’s argument to restrict citizenship.

In a related development, the Supreme Court also upheld measures allowing states to prohibit transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports teams in schools. To date, 27 states led by Republican majorities have passed laws requiring students to compete according to their sex assigned at birth instead of their gender identity. Trump praised the decision on his social media platform, calling it a reversal of what he described as a “ridiculous situation.”

Additionally, the court relaxed certain campaign finance rules by supporting a Republican-backed appeal to reduce limits on the amount individuals and groups can donate to political campaigns, signaling a shift toward fewer restrictions on political contributions.

Together, these rulings reflect the court’s conservative tilt on several contentious social and political issues, while reaffirming constitutional protections in the context of citizenship rights.