In a landmark constitutional ruling, the US Supreme Court has held that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to children born on US soil, irrespective of whether their parents are unlawfully present in the country or hold only temporary immigration status. By a 5-4 majority, the Court struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to deny automatic citizenship to such children.
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in part and dissented in part, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
The case,arose from Executive Order No. 14160, titled Protecting the meaning and value of American Citizenship, issued on January 20, 2025. The executive order sought to exclude from birthright citizenship children born in the United States to parents who were either unlawfully residing in the country or admitted only on a temporary basis. It asserted that such children were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and, therefore, were not entitled to citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The executive order was challenged before the federal courts by several parents acting on behalf of their children. A federal district court provisionally certified a nationwide class comprising all children who would be affected by the order and granted a preliminary injunction restraining its implementation. Considering the exceptional constitutional importance of the issues involved, the Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment and took up the matter directly.
The principal issue before the Court was whether children born within the territorial limits of the United States to parents who are either unlawfully present or temporarily residing in the country acquire US citizenship by birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Answering the question in the affirmative, the Court held that such children are born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are consequently citizens from birth.
Interpreting the Citizenship Clause, the majority undertook a detailed examination of its constitutional history and purpose. The Court observed that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to overturn the discriminatory consequences of Dred Scott v. Sandford and to entrench the principle of birthright citizenship constitutionally. Referring to the common law doctrine of jus soli and the historical understanding of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction,” the majority held that the constitutional guarantee extends to nearly every person born within the United States, regardless of the immigration status of his or her parents.
The Court rejected the executive branch’s interpretation that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” excludes children of undocumented or temporary migrants. It held that the expression has consistently been understood to refer to persons who are required to comply with US laws and are entitled to their protection, subject only to a few historically recognised exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats and enemy forces occupying US territory. The Court concluded that the executive order was incompatible with the constitutional text, historical understanding, and long-settled judicial precedent governing birthright citizenship.
Justice Kavanaugh agreed that the executive order could not be sustained but reached that conclusion on narrower statutory grounds. In his separate opinion, he held that the executive action conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act and was therefore invalid without deciding the broader constitutional question. As a result, while a majority of the Court agreed that the executive order was unlawful, the holding that the Fourteenth Amendment independently guarantees birthright citizenship was supported by a 5-4 majority.
The Court further clarified that the constitutional guarantee embodied in the Citizenship Clause cannot be altered by executive action or ordinary legislation. It held that any attempt to redefine or restrict birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment, reaffirming that the Fourteenth Amendment’s scope cannot be curtailed by unilateral executive action or statutory enactment.
The post Supreme Court invalidates Trump’s Birthright Citizenship order, affirms fourteenth amendment protection appeared first on India Legal.