US Supreme Court rules against Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship

US President Donald Trump urged Congress on Tuesday to end birthright ⁠citizenship after the Supreme Court handed his administration a major setback by blocking the attempt to limit citizenship at birth for people born on American soil.

“The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, ⁠which ⁠is too bad for ⁠our ‌Country, but ​we ‌can easily make it ‌up ​in Congress ​through ​Legislation,” Trump wrote ​in a ⁠post on social media.

pic.twitter.com/tIiSkLrJfM

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 30, 2026

The 6-3 ruling, in line with the longstanding judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment, is the second instance this year that America’s apex court has invalidated a major Trump initiative, following the decision in February to strike down the Trump administration’s global tariffs.

BREAKING: The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, reaffirming the more than 100-year-old understanding that nearly all of those born in the United States are citizens. pic.twitter.com/r1sMCdrSQt

— CBS News (@CBSNews) June 30, 2026

Lower court invalidation upheld by apex court

A lower court had earlier blocked the Trump administration’s executive order that directed the US agencies not to recognise the US citizenship of children born in the United States if neither parent is an American citizen or legal permanent resident, Reuters reported. The Supreme Court justices upheld the lower court’s verdict on Tuesday.

Chief Justice emphasises constitutional guarantees

Citing congressional debate over the amendment, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’”

.

The ruling Trump's order The justices Both sides Around the world What Americans think

§

14th

Amendment the Court relied on, adopted after the Civil War

⊘

Never

The order took effect anywhere in the U.S.

¶

26 / 91

Pages: majority opinion vs Thomas's dissent

The decision

A broad birthright citizenship, upheld

The Supreme Court upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship, rejecting President Trump's executive order declaring that children born to parents in the U.S. illegally or temporarily are not citizens. The justices relied on the long-settled reading of the 14th Amendment — that anyone born in the country, with very limited exceptions, is a citizen.

What the order sought

Citizenship denied to some U.S.-born children

Signed on the first day of Trump's second term, the order declared that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily would not be American citizens. It was blocked by several lower courts and never took effect anywhere in the country.

.

Jan 2025

Trump signs the order on the first day of his second term.

.

Soon after

Several lower courts, including one in New Hampshire, block it. It never takes effect.

.

April

The Supreme Court hears arguments. Trump attends in person — the first sitting president to do so.

.

This term — the ruling

The Court upholds birthright citizenship, rejecting the order.

Majority vs dissent

Roberts for the Court; Thomas in dissent

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 26-page majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented at length — 91 pages, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

“Citizenship… was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. … We keep that promise today.”

— Chief Justice John Roberts, majority opinion

From the April arguments

❝

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

“Is this happening in the delivery room?” — pressing on how citizenship would be decided.

❝

Justice Amy Coney Barrett

“…what about the Constitution?” — interrupting the government's lawyer.

Both conservative and liberal justices questioned the order's legality during arguments.

Welcomed by

❝

ACLU

“No matter who your parents are, if you're born here, you belong here.”

❝

Global Refuge

The order would have “turned the maternity ward into a customs checkpoint.”

Criticised by

❝

Federation for American Immigration Reform

Birthright for children of those here illegally is “a ballooning negative consequence” of weak enforcement.

❝

Solicitor General D. John Sauer (for the administration)

Birthright “demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship.”

Civil-rights and immigrant-advocacy groups welcomed the ruling; immigration-restriction groups and the administration opposed it.

Jus soli — right of soil

Citizenship by place of birth. Common across North, Central and South America.

Jus sanguinis — right of blood

Citizenship inherited from parents. The norm outside the Americas — no EU member grants automatic, unconditional citizenship to children of foreigners.

A shifting map

Even old jus soli countries have pulled back

U.S. practice descends from English common law's “right of soil.” But the UK abandoned it in 1981 — today a child born there gains citizenship only if a parent is British or has “settled status.” Legal historians trace the Americas' embrace of birthright to colonial-era practices more than 500 years old.

◕

~2 in 3

Say U.S.-born children should get automatic citizenship

◔

44%

Among Republicans

◕

75%

Support it for children of parents on work visas

◑

~half

Support it for children of parents here illegally

Public opinion

Broad support — but conflicted on the details

An April AP-NORC poll of more than 2,500 adults found about two-thirds say children born in the U.S. should get automatic citizenship — though support varies sharply by party and by the parents' immigration status.

Sources: Associated Press · AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research · U.S. Supreme Court opinions.

.

Immediate injunctions on day-one executive 0rder

The executive decision issued by Trump on the first day of his second tenure, January 20, 2025, had not taken effect anywhere in the United States as it had been blocked by several lower courts, AP reported.

Legal challenges grounded in the 14th Amendment

The US Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship to those born in the United States, and the challengers to Trump’s executive order argued in court that it violates the language of the amendment.

Story continues below this ad

Historical precedent reaffirmed through centuries-old case law

The challengers added that the US Supreme Court had already settled the birthright citizenship matter in an 1898 case called United States v. ⁠Wong Kim Ark, ​which recognised that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship by birth on US soil, including to the children of foreign nationals, Reuters reported.

“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,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

How can birthright citizenship ruling impact Indians?

The US Supreme Court ruling is a relief for over 5 million Indian Americans currently residing in America, which accounts for nearly 1.47 percent of US’ total population, according to US Census Bureau data.

The census data added that out of 5 million Indian Americans, 34 percent are US born and nearly two-thirds of them are immigrants. If the Trump’s executive order had prevailed, majority of Indians working in US on work visa (for example H-1B) would have been in a soup as children born to Indian-origin couples in the country wouldn’t have been granted automatic citizenship.