Supreme Court Decides Trump v. Barbara

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365, holding that children born in the United States to parents who are 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 Court rejected any rule that would condition birthright citizenship on parental domicile, lawful immigration status, or permanent presence in the United States.

At issue in this case was Executive Order No. 14160, which provided that children born in the United States to parents without lawful immigration status or present only temporarily were not eligible for birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act. The executive order was challenged in federal court and preliminarily enjoined. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the judgment of the district court. 

The Court observed that the concept of birthright citizenship had been present since before the time of the founding. The Court explained that the English common law rule of citizenship, "jus soli," created a "dual and reciprocal tie" between the King and the people, and treated all children born within the sovereign's dominions as natural-born subjects, with narrow exceptions for children born where the sovereign lacked control and for children of foreign ministers. 

This rule crossed the Atlantic and became the prevailing understanding in America, a "Nation of immigrants" and an "asylum for mankind." The Court described Dred Scott as a departure from that tradition because that case conditioned citizenship on blood rather than birth on American soil. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, and then the Fourteenth Amendment, repudiated that departure and enshrined birthright citizenship into the Constitution of the United States. 

The majority reasoned that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has two elements: birth in the United States and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It read "subject to the jurisdiction" to refer to the sovereign power of the United States to govern persons within its territory, including children of foreigners present only temporarily, not to a domicile requirement or to the immigration status of the parents. Because children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are born on American soil and subject to American law, the Court held that they satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause. 

The Court held that United States v. Wong Kim Ark further confirmed the same rule. In the Court's reading, Wong Kim Ark held that the Fourteenth Amendment was declaratory of the common-law rule of citizenship by birth and excluded only those exempt from the jurisdiction of the United States, such as children of ambassadors and children born in the alien nations of Indian tribes. The majority rejected the Government's and dissenters' attempt to limit Wong Kim Ark to children of parents domiciled in the United States, reasoning that Wong Kim Ark's historical and textual analysis could not be squared with a domicile requirement. The Court also emphasized that the words central to the Executive Order — such as "mother," "father," "lawful," and "temporary" — do not appear in the Citizenship Clause.

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, which was joined by Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, Justice Barrett, and Justice Jackon. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Sotomayor as to the Introduction and Part I. Justice Kavanaugh filed an opinion concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.