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 Amendments 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 courts 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 Trumps 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 courts 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 -
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 -
This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.
LetMyPeopleVote
(184,187 posts)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/
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)Thomas and Alito dissenting was a given
SergeStorms
(21,093 posts)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)but Alito and Thomas believe in kings. Gorsuch is, except on rare occasions, a rw hack.
Old Crank
(7,438 posts)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)LetMyPeopleVote
(184,187 posts)reACTIONary
(7,441 posts)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.
slightlv
(8,220 posts)Thomas is as logical as a maga can get! Alito just rides coattails.
reACTIONary
(7,441 posts).... 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)This should never have been litigated to begin with a ridiculous waste of time.
Trump regimes immigration agenda is motivated by racism, bigotry, and hate.
jgmiller
(715 posts)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)... but as you said, that is not what the 14th says. Yet another "textualist" failure.
BumRushDaShow
(173,772 posts)and what that may have meant in the 1800s vs today.
LeftInTX
(34,986 posts)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). . . cant see Trumps reaction.
Wife is in rehab, she wants me here 24/7, tv is limited, dont know the politics of other people here so I cant watch Rachel and Lawrence and cheer.
Maybe this will lead him to blow a gasket.
Im depending on DU comments to keep me informed!!!
MoseShrute
(179 posts)Or that concept just didnt work in this situation?
reACTIONary
(7,441 posts)... 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.
LymphocyteLover
(10,446 posts)Callie1979
(1,509 posts)Gaytano70
(1,305 posts)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.
reACTIONary
(7,441 posts)... but I'm glad we got what we got.
I completely expected theyd gut the 14th Amendment.
Danmel
(5,834 posts)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)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)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.
LymphocyteLover
(10,446 posts)republianmushroom
(22,933 posts)Dangling0826
(70 posts)it was 5-4 on constitutional grounds
NNadir
(38,889 posts)The actual words in it?
That is something quite new.
DonCoquixote
(13,993 posts)Consider that the 14th was what allowed YOU to be a citizen, don'y you find yourself at odd with yourself?
Kablooie
(19,142 posts)Thats all that counts.
Doodley
(12,146 posts)yet another grievance about American institutions that are stopping him from implementing his racist agenda.
LeftInTX
(34,986 posts)WestMichRad
(3,528 posts)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)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)Still think they can ignore the constitution and make up new laws all by themselves.
Aristus
(72,758 posts)They really, REALLY want to strip people of their citizenship.
fujiyamasan
(2,200 posts)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.
pansypoo53219
(23,274 posts)lakercub
(673 posts)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)It's so exhausting. Every day. Their grifting, and lying, and just being all around douche bags.
IronLionZion
(51,720 posts)MAGAts hate when job stealers are born here.