US Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, rejecting Trump’s proposed limits

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump's executive order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

The decision, in line with the longstanding judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment, comes on the final day of a Supreme Court term that has centered on Trump's expansive claims of presidential power - and largely ruled in his favor.

In its other Tuesday rulings, the court upheld laws in roughly half the states that prohibit transgender girls and women from playing on their public school and college sport teams and struck down limits on party spending in federal elections.

Here's the latest:

"The president was never going to win, in the sense that his executive order was going to be overturned," said Mark Krikorian, the director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank favoring restrictive immigration policies. "The question was if the Supreme Court would accept the ACLU's interpretation of the 14th Amendment."

The ruling "constitutionalized the question" of birthright citizenship, he said, requiring changes through a constitutional amendment.

That, he argued, is highly unlikely: "Congress can't rename post offices, let alone do anything else."

But, he said, birthright could now become a powerful political wedge issue, similar to the court's 1973 abortion ruling, which was overturned in 2022.

"It'll distort our politics the way Roe vs. Wade did in energizing a political movement," he said.

Mark Krikorian, a prominent Washington voice favoring restrictive immigration policies, said he expects the ruling to result in new U.S. visa applications, with potential visitors being asked if they are pregnant.

"It's something that visa officers are often reluctant to ask about - it's awkward," said Krikorian, the director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

"But if it's on the application then you have the answers, and if you lie you've committed a felony," he said.

The Trump administration says birthright citizenship has created what it calls a birth tourism industry.

"It is unacceptable for foreign parents to use a U.S. tourist visa for the primary purpose of giving birth in the United States to obtain citizenship for the child," the State Department said in a post on X. "Those who abuse our immigration system through birth tourism may be ineligible for future visas or travel to the United States."

He insists the majority opinion perpetuates a misunderstanding and misapplication of the 14th amendment.

The citizenship clause and related Reconstruction statutes granted citizenship "to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race," he wrote. But "neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States."

He continued: "Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority."

That highlights the argument over what it means to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.

The majority holds that, with exceptions like foreign diplomats, being on U.S. soil makes a person subject to U.S. laws. Thomas and dissenters reason that no one who is separately subject to another foreign government should be considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S., at least when conferring citizenship.

Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent in the birthright case argued the 14th amendment's citizenship clause applied only to formerly enslaved people and not more broadly.

That prompted Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to pen a concurrence to Roberts' majority opinion.

"Despite his longstanding endorsement of a 'colorblind' Constitution, Justice Thomas now surprisingly suggests that the Citizenship Clause was a race-conscious remedial measure, relating only to 'freed slaves such as Dred Scott,'" she wrote, calling that a "narrow vision" of Reconstruction's intended expansion of democracy.

"This alternative account pitches Black Americans against immigrants when the advocates who promoted the Fourteenth Amendment did no such thing," Jackson wrote. "Freed Blacks fought for the shared humanity of all people."

Jackson is the first Black woman to sit on the Supreme Court. Thomas is the second Black man, succeeding Thurgood Marshall, who argued the Brown v. Board case that struck down segregated schools.

The president said the Supreme Court's decision upholding that anyone born in the United States automatically becomes an American citizen was "too bad for our Country," but that Congress could "easily" address it with legislation.

Trump declared that "No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary!"

But the Supreme Court's ruling Tuesday makes it clear that it would be necessary to amend the Constitution. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the opinion for the court, pointed to the Fourteenth Amendment in the Constitution in ruling that anyone born in the country, with very limited exceptions, is a citizen.

The Justice Department said in a statement that it's "committed to tackling illegal birth tourism schemes by working diligently with U.S. Attorneys across the country to uphold the law."

"Actors seeking to exploit loopholes to obtain automatic citizenship for their children pose a national security threat and will be brought to justice," the department said in a post on X.

U.S. Supreme Court justices have long distanced themselves from the pre-Civil War decision that declared Black people - enslaved and free - were not U.S. citizens.

The 1857 Dred Scott case was featured again Tuesday, being mentioned 48 times in 194 pages of the birthright citizenship opinion, concurrences and dissents.

Roberts' majority opinion explained how U.S. birthright citizenship originates with English common law: Anyone born in the monarch's realm was considered a "natural-born subject."

The "odious" Scott case, Roberts said, deviated from that once-accepted understanding and "was met with shock."

In response, he detailed, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause restored common law understanding, with lawmakers making clear they were explicitly rebuking the Scott decision.

Yet, Roberts wrote, "the Government and the principal dissent propose a return to its core tenet," that "for certain people, being born on American soil will not suffice to confer citizenship."