The US Supreme Court on Tuesday dealt President Donald Trump a major legal setback, ruling 6-3 against his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship and reaffirming that children born on American soil are entitled to US citizenship regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
The decision struck down one of Trump’s signature immigration initiatives, with the court upholding a lower court ruling that blocked his executive order directing federal agencies not to recognise the citizenship of children born in the United States if neither parent is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The ruling marked the second major defeat for Trump at the Supreme Court this year, following its February decision invalidating his sweeping global tariffs.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the court saw no reason to depart from its long-established interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
“Not surprisingly, then, in the 128 years since, we have repeatedly understood the rule of Wong Kim Ark to guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its power,” Roberts wrote. “We see no reason to depart from that view today.”
Roberts dismissed the administration’s interpretation of the Constitution, saying there was “scant evidence” to support its position.
“There was scant evidence” to support the Trump administration’s “dramatically revisionist view” of how to interpret the citizenship language of the 14th Amendment to limit birthright citizenship.
He added:
“If Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design.”
The legal challenge centred on Trump’s executive order, signed on his first day back in office last year as part of a broader immigration crackdown. Critics argued the order violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which 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.”
The plaintiffs argued that the Supreme Court had already resolved the issue in its landmark 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which recognised that the Constitution grants citizenship to virtually everyone born on U.S. soil, including children of foreign nationals.
The Supreme Court agreed, reaffirming that precedent just days before the United States marks the 250th anniversary of its founding on July 4.
Legal experts had estimated that Trump’s directive could have affected the citizenship status of as many as 250,000 babies born annually, while potentially requiring millions of families to prove the citizenship status of their newborn children.
The case before the Supreme Court stemmed from a class-action lawsuit filed in New Hampshire by parents and children whose citizenship status was threatened by the executive order. U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante allowed the case to proceed as a nationwide class action in July 2025, effectively blocking enforcement of the policy across the country.
The Trump administration argued that the constitutional phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excluded children born to immigrants living illegally in the United States or those in the country temporarily on visas, such as students and temporary workers.
Government lawyers maintained that citizenship should be granted only to children whose parents’ “primary allegiance” was to the United States, arguing that such allegiance is established through “lawful domicile” or permanent legal residence.
Appearing before the Supreme Court during oral arguments on April 1, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the administration’s position, arguing that unrestricted birthright citizenship had fuelled what he described as “birth tourism.”
Sauer told the justices:
“Uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades.”
However, when asked how widespread the practice had become, Sauer acknowledged that “no one knows for sure,” relying largely on media reports.
He also argued that the Citizenship Clause was never intended to apply as broadly as courts have interpreted it, saying it was adopted:
“To grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves and their children, whose allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile here.”
During the arguments, some conservative justices questioned the administration’s reliance on the Wong Kim Ark precedent. Justice Neil Gorsuch remarked:
“Well, I’m not sure how much you want to rely on Wong Kim Ark.”
Trump has long advocated ending automatic birthright citizenship and has repeatedly criticised the policy.
Writing on social media last year, Trump said:
“Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the ‘SUCKERS’ that we are!”
He added:
“But the drug cartels love it! We are, for the sake of being politically correct, a STUPID Country but, in actuality, this is the exact opposite of being politically correct, and it is yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America.”
Tuesday’s ruling came at the close of the Supreme Court’s current term, which began in October.
Although the court’s conservative majority has backed Trump on several immigration measures since his return to office—including allowing the administration to revoke humanitarian protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian migrants and permitting tougher restrictions on asylum claims—it has also handed the president significant defeats.
Earlier this year, the court struck down Trump’s emergency tariff programme, while on Monday it declined to allow him to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from office.
Boluwatife Enome
