Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(173,772 posts)
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 10:37 AM 8 hrs ago

Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, blocks Trump order

Source: CNBC

Published Tue, Jun 30 2026 10:35 AM EDT Updated 2 Min Ago


The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the right to citizenship for people born in the United States, rejecting an executive order by President Donald Trump that sought to undo that longstanding constitutional principle for children born to many immigrants.

“Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause,” the majority decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts said.

Roberts was joined by his fellow conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, along with the court’s three liberal justices, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in the majority ruling on 14th Amendment grounds.

Another conservative, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote that he did not believe Trump’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment, but that it “does contravene a federal statute” adopted in 1940 that addresses the citizenship of people born in the U.S. The court’s justices had signaled during oral arguments in April that they would affirm that individuals born in the United States to non-U.S. citizens are automatically granted citizenship.

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/30/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-ruling.html



Link to ORDER (PDF) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf


Article updated.

Previous article -

Published Tue, Jun 30 2026 10:35 AM EDT Updated 1 Min Ago


The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the right to citizenship for people born in the United States, rejecting an executive order by President Donald Trump that sought to undo that longstanding constitutional principle for children born to many immigrants.

The court's justices had signaled during oral arguments in April that they would affirm that individuals born in the United States to non-U.S. citizens are automatically granted citizenship. Trump attended the oral arguments for the case, the first sitting president ever to do so. The case is known as Trump v. Barbara.

The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which was adopted in 1868, says,"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."

Trump, on his first day back in the White House on Jan. 20, 2025, signed an executive order seeking to undo that right. The order said that 30 days after its effective date, babies born in the U.S. were not entitled to be issued citizenship documents if their parents had immigrated illegally or were undocumented workers.



Original article -

Published Tue, Jun 30 2026 10:35 AM EDT


This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.
43 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, blocks Trump order (Original Post) BumRushDaShow 8 hrs ago OP
Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, striking down Trump's order LetMyPeopleVote 8 hrs ago #1
It would have been a huge surprise if it was unanimous. onenote 8 hrs ago #3
Strange, isn't it..... SergeStorms 6 hrs ago #33
Should have been 9-0 Deminpenn 8 hrs ago #5
Not surprised that it wasn't 9-0 Old Crank 8 hrs ago #6
I didn't see how divided it was... could you tell me? I'm headed out the door on errands... thanks! slightlv 7 hrs ago #8
6-3 decision LetMyPeopleVote 7 hrs ago #11
Five to Three.... reACTIONary 8 hrs ago #2
5-3 SMDH slightlv 7 hrs ago #9
Yes, 5 to 3 is disappointing, maybe... reACTIONary 7 hrs ago #12
It would have been a surprise if it were a unanimous decision. J_William_Ryan 8 hrs ago #4
I can't believe I'm saying this but I give Thomas a little credit in his dissent jgmiller 7 hrs ago #7
I see what you are saying... reACTIONary 7 hrs ago #14
The debate point seemed to be focused on the term "domicile" BumRushDaShow 7 hrs ago #18
I was thinking they would tweak the visitor LeftInTX 6 hrs ago #29
I'm upset that I . . . AverageOldGuy 7 hrs ago #10
So does this mean alito is no longer an "originalist?" MoseShrute 7 hrs ago #13
"Originalist" and "Textualist" are basically scams.... reACTIONary 7 hrs ago #16
it means he's a racist liar (also a misogynist and theofascist) LymphocyteLover 7 hrs ago #21
It only applies when you agree with what it says! Callie1979 6 hrs ago #30
I'm actually surprised. Gaytano70 7 hrs ago #15
I would have liked 9 to 0... reACTIONary 7 hrs ago #17
Same. YodaMom2 7 hrs ago #25
From Robert's opinion Danmel 7 hrs ago #19
Super important point-- this issue isn't going away for the rightwing. We HAVE to fix the court. LymphocyteLover 7 hrs ago #20
But Roe was never an Amendment. Callie1979 6 hrs ago #32
Yeah, but the point is they have their teeth in this one and are unlikely to let go LymphocyteLover 3 hrs ago #42
The court got this one right. republianmushroom 7 hrs ago #22
It was 5/4 Dangling0826 7 hrs ago #23
What?!??!! The thugs and hacks on the Supreme Court actually READ the Constitution? NNadir 7 hrs ago #24
Judge Thomas DonCoquixote 6 hrs ago #26
He got his... Kablooie 5 hrs ago #36
The law isn't important to Trump. What is important to him is his racist signaling to his adoring base, and he has Doodley 6 hrs ago #27
Relieved, but thought it would 7-2 LeftInTX 6 hrs ago #28
Yay! But... what's next? WestMichRad 6 hrs ago #31
I support our next Democratic president throwing spaghetti at the wall with outlandish overreach too! ffr 5 hrs ago #34
Three of them.., Kablooie 5 hrs ago #35
Marco Rubio and JD Vance are going to be crushed. Aristus 5 hrs ago #37
It's scary how close this was fujiyamasan 4 hrs ago #38
even roberts can't undo a fucking amendment. big fucking DUH! pansypoo53219 4 hrs ago #39
I love how liberals are accused of legislating from the bench lakercub 4 hrs ago #40
One less thing to worry about for now. mtngirl47 3 hrs ago #41
Good. Thankful. Plenty of MAGAts were looking to throw me out IronLionZion 58 min ago #43

LetMyPeopleVote

(184,187 posts)
1. Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, striking down Trump's order
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 10:45 AM
8 hrs ago

The only surprise is that this was not a unanimous decision
Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, striking down Trump's order
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-trump-decision/

Washington — 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.

In a divided decision in the case Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court found that Mr. Trump's policy is unlawful.

With its decision, the Supreme Court has now invalidated a second of Mr. Trump's signature initiatives from his second term, joining its ruling striking down many of his tariffs in February. The president signed his directive aiming to restrict birthright citizenship on his first day back in the White House as part of a sweeping crackdown on immigration.

onenote

(46,363 posts)
3. It would have been a huge surprise if it was unanimous.
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 10:54 AM
8 hrs ago

Thomas and Alito dissenting was a given

SergeStorms

(21,093 posts)
33. Strange, isn't it.....
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 01:01 PM
6 hrs ago

that they'll expand the Constitution to include anything that increases executive power, but shrink the Constitution to exclude anything about voting rights? 🤔 What's up with that? 😉

But don't dare accuse them of being "activist judges." Only Democrats can seat "activist judges."

Deminpenn

(17,639 posts)
5. Should have been 9-0
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 10:56 AM
8 hrs ago

but Alito and Thomas believe in kings. Gorsuch is, except on rare occasions, a rw hack.

Old Crank

(7,438 posts)
6. Not surprised that it wasn't 9-0
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 10:57 AM
8 hrs ago

It was 6-3 with Kavenaugh concurring with a minor dissent.

The Economist ran their models and figured it would be 6-3 or 5-4 for keeping the law as it stands.

The disenting 3 are the usual suspects. Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas

slightlv

(8,220 posts)
8. I didn't see how divided it was... could you tell me? I'm headed out the door on errands... thanks!
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:04 AM
7 hrs ago

reACTIONary

(7,441 posts)
2. Five to Three....
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 10:51 AM
8 hrs ago

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
SOTOMAYOR,
KAGAN,
BARRETT, and
JACKSON, JJ., joined.

JACKSON, J.,
filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to the introduction and Part I.

KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part.

THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which
GORSUCH, J., joined.

ALITO, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed dissenting
opinions.

reACTIONary

(7,441 posts)
12. Yes, 5 to 3 is disappointing, maybe...
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:12 AM
7 hrs ago

.... to be expected, but disappointing.

In a land that's known as freedom, how can such a thing be fair? It should have been unanimous.

I'll take what we can get, but we have a lot of work left to do. That is, leftward.

J_William_Ryan

(3,669 posts)
4. It would have been a surprise if it were a unanimous decision.
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 10:55 AM
8 hrs ago

This should never have been litigated to begin with – a ridiculous waste of time.

Trump regime’s immigration agenda is motivated by racism, bigotry, and hate.

jgmiller

(715 posts)
7. I can't believe I'm saying this but I give Thomas a little credit in his dissent
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:03 AM
7 hrs ago

Alito's dissent was basically what you would expect but Thomas at least attempted to find some logic to the dissent which seems to be at least partially why Gorsuch joined it. From what I can see he bases it on if the parents of the person who is born her is now living here and has moved from their home country. In other words he seems to want to say that if someone is just visiting even for a year but they maintain a home in another country then they have not moved here permanently. In the end I disagree with him because that's not what the 14th says but at least he tried to be logical.

reACTIONary

(7,441 posts)
14. I see what you are saying...
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:15 AM
7 hrs ago

... but as you said, that is not what the 14th says. Yet another "textualist" failure.

BumRushDaShow

(173,772 posts)
18. The debate point seemed to be focused on the term "domicile"
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:32 AM
7 hrs ago

and what that may have meant in the 1800s vs today.

LeftInTX

(34,986 posts)
29. I was thinking they would tweak the visitor
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 12:29 PM
6 hrs ago

Visa thing. But things are hard to tweak via the Supreme Court.

And throwing out birthright citizenship outright, would be wrong.

AverageOldGuy

(4,391 posts)
10. I'm upset that I . . .
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:07 AM
7 hrs ago

. . . can’t see Trump’s reaction.

Wife is in rehab, she wants me here 24/7, tv is limited, don’t know the politics of other people here so I can’t watch Rachel and Lawrence and cheer.

Maybe this will lead him to blow a gasket.

I’m depending on DU comments to keep me informed!!!

MoseShrute

(179 posts)
13. So does this mean alito is no longer an "originalist?"
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:13 AM
7 hrs ago

Or that concept just didn’t work in this situation?

reACTIONary

(7,441 posts)
16. "Originalist" and "Textualist" are basically scams....
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:19 AM
7 hrs ago

... this yet again shows that to be the case.

The only reason "originalists" are originalists is that we have progressed since the origin, so the "origin" is more amenable to being contorted to what they desire.

Gaytano70

(1,305 posts)
15. I'm actually surprised.
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:17 AM
7 hrs ago

I thought when they released all their less offensive decisions yesterday they were creating a smoke screen for today when they actually obliterated the Constitution. Glad to be proven wrong.

Danmel

(5,834 posts)
19. From Robert's opinion
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:38 AM
7 hrs ago

As the daughter of immigrants, I am relieved that they got this one right.
"Citizenship, then and now", Roberts concludes, "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. We keep that promise today."

Trying to salvage a speck of decency I guess.

LymphocyteLover

(10,446 posts)
20. Super important point-- this issue isn't going away for the rightwing. We HAVE to fix the court.
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:40 AM
7 hrs ago

With this ruling, the birthright issue is not going away. The right hasn't really begun *organizing* around getting rid of the citizenship clause. Like Roe, this will be their fight for a generation. And if the Democrats just say "we won" and ignore it, like Roe, the Republicans will eventually win.

ElieNYC (@elienyc.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:43:28.616Z

Callie1979

(1,509 posts)
32. But Roe was never an Amendment.
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 12:58 PM
6 hrs ago

even Justic Ginsberg said the original ruling was a poor one.
Here, as Kavenaugh says, Congress CAN make a change. But it would likely have to be another Amendment. Which, properly written, I think would pass. Just like a term limits one would.

NNadir

(38,889 posts)
24. What?!??!! The thugs and hacks on the Supreme Court actually READ the Constitution?
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:59 AM
7 hrs ago

The actual words in it?

That is something quite new.

DonCoquixote

(13,993 posts)
26. Judge Thomas
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 12:01 PM
6 hrs ago

Consider that the 14th was what allowed YOU to be a citizen, don'y you find yourself at odd with yourself?

Doodley

(12,146 posts)
27. The law isn't important to Trump. What is important to him is his racist signaling to his adoring base, and he has
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 12:08 PM
6 hrs ago

yet another grievance about American institutions that are stopping him from implementing his racist agenda.

WestMichRad

(3,528 posts)
31. Yay! But... what's next?
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 12:58 PM
6 hrs ago

You know the right wing extremists won't let this issue lie dormant. Maybe...?
- females denied entry into the US
- mandatory pregnancy tests before allowing entry
- women seeking entry to the US forced to sign a document acknowledging that any children they may have while here cannot be citizens and must leave the country at the earliest possible date
- foreign parents of children born here coerced or bribed into signing away rights (and then deported)

Yeah, some of these are pretty plainly illegal, but since when have these scum operated wholly within the law?

ffr

(23,460 posts)
34. I support our next Democratic president throwing spaghetti at the wall with outlandish overreach too!
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 01:16 PM
5 hrs ago

We're all, phew! We dodged a bullet, democracy saved for one more day. And the GOP is thinking keep chipping away at democracy until Project 2025 is realized and there is no more America as we know it, just a land of oligarchy.

Kablooie

(19,142 posts)
35. Three of them..,
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 01:28 PM
5 hrs ago

Still think they can ignore the constitution and make up new laws all by themselves.

Aristus

(72,758 posts)
37. Marco Rubio and JD Vance are going to be crushed.
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 01:59 PM
5 hrs ago

They really, REALLY want to strip people of their citizenship.

fujiyamasan

(2,200 posts)
38. It's scary how close this was
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 02:12 PM
4 hrs ago

Shows how several of his henchmen on the court are willing to let him get away with the most blatant unconstitutional shit you can imagine.

lakercub

(673 posts)
40. I love how liberals are accused of legislating from the bench
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 02:27 PM
4 hrs ago

when that is EXACTLY what Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas just tried to do. This executive order was so preposterously unconstitutional and such a clear violation of the CLEAR language of the 14th amendment that to be a dissenter in this case was to give the whole game away. We already knew what and who these people are, but when it is a case this blatant it really should be grounds for impeachment. It won't happen of course.

I wish there was a defined set of standards that all these people had to meet in order to keep their positions. Obviously that standard would be absurdly low do to politics, but when you try to make a 1+1 = 6 decision it should be grounds for immediate removal. This case was that clear cut. In fact it never should have been taken up.

mtngirl47

(1,277 posts)
41. One less thing to worry about for now.
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 03:02 PM
3 hrs ago

It's so exhausting. Every day. Their grifting, and lying, and just being all around douche bags.

IronLionZion

(51,720 posts)
43. Good. Thankful. Plenty of MAGAts were looking to throw me out
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 06:02 PM
58 min ago

MAGAts hate when job stealers are born here.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court upholds bir...