The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship, affirming that nearly all children born on U.S. soil are entitled to automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling, issued in a 6-3 decision, upheld the longstanding interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, which grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, as well as the court’s three liberal justices. Roberts emphasized that the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 following the Civil War, was designed to guarantee citizenship rights to all free-born persons within the country, extending participation in the nation’s political community. He stated that the court “keeps that promise today,” rejecting the narrower interpretation advanced by the Trump administration.

Trump’s executive order, signed on January 20, 2025—the first day of his second term—declared that children born to parents residing unlawfully or temporarily in the U.S. would not be considered citizens. The administration argued that such individuals are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and thus excluded from birthright citizenship. However, multiple lower courts had blocked the order, and the Supreme Court’s ruling confirmed that children born to undocumented migrants or visa holders qualify as citizens under the Constitution.

The case revived a historical precedent from the 1898 Wong Kim Ark ruling, which affirmed citizenship for a U.S.-born child of Chinese visitors, establishing that birth on U.S. soil confers citizenship regardless of parental immigration status, except for specific exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats.

Justice Kavanaugh concurred with the outcome but disagreed with the majority’s constitutional reasoning, suggesting that birthright citizenship is protected by federal statute rather than the Fourteenth Amendment itself. The dissenting justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—argued in favor of the executive order’s legality.

President Trump responded to the decision on his social media platform, calling it “too bad for our country” but urging Congress to act legislatively to end birthright citizenship. He asserted that a constitutional amendment would not be necessary and pledged full support for congressional efforts to change the law.

Following the ruling, the U.S. Justice Department directed federal prosecutors to focus on investigating so-called birth tourism schemes—cases where foreign nationals allegedly enter the country under false pretenses to secure citizenship for their children. Enforcement actions could involve charges related to visa fraud, money laundering, and identity theft.

This decision marked the third significant judicial setback for President Trump this year, following the Supreme Court’s February ruling against his global tariff policies and a separate ruling blocking his attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The court also issued rulings on transgender athletes’ participation in school and college sports and campaign finance restrictions during the same session.