US Supreme Court Declares Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order Unconstitutional In Landmark Ruling

The US Supreme Court has declared President Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship unconstitutional, delivering a major setback to one of the central immigration measures introduced during his second term. The ruling reaffirms that children born on American soil remain entitled to US citizenship under the Constitution.

Court Reaffirms Protection Under the 14th Amendment

The legal challenge arose from an executive order signed by Trump on the first day of his second term in January 2025. The order sought to deny automatic US citizenship to children born in the country if their parents were either living in the United States illegally or were in the country on a temporary basis.

The Supreme Court held that the order conflicts with the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which has long guaranteed citizenship to nearly everyone born in the United States. The amendment, ratified in 1868, was originally introduced to secure citizenship rights for Black Americans, including formerly enslaved people, but its language extends broadly to all individuals born on US soil.

The amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Lower Courts and Historic Precedent Backed Citizenship Rights

Before reaching the Supreme Court, multiple lower courts had already ruled that Trump's executive order was unconstitutional or likely to be so. Those decisions relied heavily on the landmark 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed that a child born in the US to Chinese immigrant parents was an American citizen.

The Trump administration argued that the widely accepted interpretation of the 14th Amendment was incorrect. It maintained that children of non-citizens are not fully "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore should not automatically receive citizenship.

During oral arguments in March, Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to revisit longstanding interpretations of the amendment. He argued that the court should correct "long-enduring misconceptions about the Constitution's meaning."

Justices Questioned the Administration's Interpretation

The administration's arguments faced scrutiny from both conservative and liberal members of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the government was relying on narrow historical exceptions to justify a sweeping reinterpretation of constitutional citizenship rights.

"I'm not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples," Roberts said.

His remarks reflected concerns raised during the hearings that the administration's legal reasoning stretched beyond the historical intent and established interpretation of the Constitution.

Hundreds of Thousands of Families Could Have Been Affected

According to research by the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University's Population Research Institute, more than 250,000 babies born in the United States each year would have been impacted if the executive order had taken effect.

Although Trump's immigration policies have largely focused on people living in the country illegally, the proposed restrictions also extended to several categories of legal immigrants, including international students, temporary visa holders and individuals seeking permanent resident status through green cards.

The Supreme Court's decision preserves the long-established constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship and blocks a significant attempt to redefine who qualifies as an American citizen under the 14th Amendment.