In a 6-3 ruling, the court held Trump overreached when he tried to usurp the 14th Amendment by executive order at the start of his second term. It was one of the president鈥檚 boldest moves in what would become a sustained campaign to curtail immigration.

鈥淐itizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights 鈥� to freely participate in our political community,鈥� Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. wrote for the majority. 鈥淭he Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to 鈥榚very free-born person in this land.鈥� We keep that promise today.鈥�

Justices Sonia M. Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett concurred. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh agreed in part 鈥� for the executive order to be lawful, he argues, Congress would need to amend or enact legislation 鈥� and justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Jr., and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

鈥淎s interpreted by the Court today, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of 鈥榖irth tourists,鈥� women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home,” Alito wrote. 

While Trump was predicted to lose this battle 鈥� the justices appeared skeptical of the government鈥檚 legal reasoning during oral arguments in April 鈥� immigrant advocates expressed relief about the decision.

“Reaffirming birthright citizenship matters enormously for our schools, where immigrant-origin students are the fastest-growing group of young people 鈥� and the vast majority are American citizens, many by birthright,鈥� said Adam Strom, executive director and co-founder of Reimagining Migration. 鈥淎 decision the other way would have told millions of children, and the classmates beside them, that their place here was conditional.”

Wendy Cervantes, a director at The Center for Law and Social Policy, said the birthright ruling was important for several reasons, primarily because it was 鈥渇undamentally about how our country treats babies in the earliest days of life.鈥� 

She notes it has long ensured all children born in the U.S. have some degree of equal footing, including access to health care and other protections they need from the start. 

鈥淚f the Trump administration had been allowed to restrict birthright citizenship, it would have been yet another way to expand their deportation machine, adding newborns to the list of deportation targets,鈥� Cervantes said. 

Some 320,000 babies were born to unauthorized mothers or those with legal temporary status in 2023, according to the Pew Research Center, representing 9% of all infants born in the United States that year. Roughly would not have qualified for birthright citizenship if Trump鈥檚 executive order had been enacted at that time, the research group found.

Thomas, in writing his dissent, addressed the circumstances that led to the post-Civil War 14th Amendment, namely to ensure that the children of formerly enslaved people would be recognized as citizens.聽

Black people 鈥渨ere 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.鈥� 

The same cannot be said of the children of foreign-born parents, he wrote. 

鈥淔oreign temporary visitors were attached to their home country, lacked similar bonds to this country, and would not be called upon in time of war,鈥� he found. 鈥淎mericans, consistent with their settler ethos, believed that citizens were the people who called a place home.鈥�

Cecillia Wang, the national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the case in favor of birthright citizenship, said 鈥渢his is a day of celebration,鈥� telling CNN the decision 鈥渞eaffirms one of the fundamental pillars of American life. That all of us who are born on American soil are citizens alike.鈥�

Reacting to the idea that Congress could undo the 14th Amendment, Wang, herself a birthright citizen, said, 鈥淚f they want to try to overturn it by constitutional amendment, good luck to them because they are going against the will of the people of the United States.鈥�

In Tuesday afternoon, Trump claimed that Congress could easily undo the Supreme Court’s ruling without a “long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment,” but that does appear to be a real legislative pathway.

While the justices turned back the president on birthright citizenship, they handed Trump two other critical immigration-related victories late last week. 

The court ended for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants, who were permitted to live and work here because their homelands were deemed too violent or unstable. It also agreed that people waiting just outside the nation鈥檚 border could not claim if they had not physically set foot in the U.S. 鈥� and sanctioned the government鈥檚 ability to turn them away. 

Asylum is a protection from deportation for those who have been persecuted in their home countries or have a well-founded fear of harm there. 

Hundreds of thousands of children have sought this protection in recent years, arriving or with their families. An untold number have been turned back at the border.

In fiscal year 2023, the U.S. granted asylum to people, according to : 26% were under age 18. 

Congress created Temporary Protected Status in 1990 to provide short-term humanitarian relief for those who could not safely return to their country of origin. The high court recognized, in its opinion, that while the program was designed to offer interim help, many TPS recipients had been living in the country for decades.

Last year, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced these protections would terminate within months. Both communities sued the government over the move: Syrians cited procedural flaws and the U.S.鈥檚 failure to assess the safety of their home country and Haitians pointed to prior statements by the president and Noem they said revealed racial animus and bias. 

Lower courts ruled that the government could not proceed but the six conservative justices decided in the administration鈥檚 favor.

Justice Kagan, writing for the minority that included Sotomayor and Jackson, said that Trump鈥檚 comments falsely claiming Haitians ate neighborhood pets 鈥渇airly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into the President鈥檚 resolve to remove Haitians from this country.鈥� 

Tsion Gurmu, a Houston-based immigration attorney and legal director of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, said the decision reflects longstanding racial discrimination. 

鈥淭he majority of the justices held that the litany of racial slurs and stereotypes Trump directed at Haitians were not racist,鈥� she said. 鈥淗owever, as the dissent makes clear, racism is the basis of the administration’s revocation of Haitian TPS and other racist immigration policies enacted by this administration. One of the major takeaways for folks grappling with this decision should be that racial justice is an immigrant rights issue.鈥�

The Trump administration aims to end the program entirely, including for immigrants from Burma (Myanmar), El Salvador, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen.

Cervantes, in comparing the court鈥檚 birthright decision to its move to end TPS for Haitian and Syrian immigrants, just as it did for Venezuelans last year, notes these groups need more than temporary cover. 

鈥淎t the end of the day, the overall takeaway for me is that it demonstrates the importance of creating and protecting pathways to citizenship, since temporary forms can too often become vulnerable,鈥� she said. 鈥淵et, the current administration continues to attempt to block newcomers 鈥� even newborn babies 鈥� from ever being able to access citizenship.鈥�

The decision, which is expected later this month, comes in response to President Donald Trump’s January 2025 ending the 158-year-old practice that was enshrined in the Constitution by the 14th Amendment. 

Trump wants to ban birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and those whose parents are temporary residents.  

In another critical immigration-related case, the court will decide whether Trump can terminate the Temporary Protected Status that has allowed Haitian and Syrian immigrants to live and work in the United States for years as their home countries were in turmoil.

Many watching these two cases believe the justices will preserve birthright citizenship 鈥� but may strike down TPS for these two groups. Hundreds of thousands of lost that protected status last year. 

Ending birthright citizenship would be an abomination, immigrant advocates say, especially for children. 

鈥淏irthright citizenship is one of America’s most consequential commitments 鈥� the idea that where you are born, not where your parents came from, determines your belonging to this nation,鈥� said Adam Strom, executive director and co-founder of Reimagining Migration. 鈥淔or the millions of immigrant-origin children in our schools, this isn’t an abstraction. It’s the ground they stand on.鈥�

Several justices were skeptical of the government鈥檚 position as presented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer in oral arguments April 1. Sauer argued that the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was put in place to protect the offspring of formerly enslaved people, whose allegiance to the country was not under question. 

鈥淚t did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens, who have no such allegiance,鈥� he said, adding, 鈥渦nrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations.鈥� 

Sauer said it demeans the priceless and 鈥減rofound gift鈥� of American citizenship.

But Justice Elena Kagan wasn鈥檛 sure the government鈥檚 overall argument was as strong as Sauer claimed. 

鈥淚 think even your brief concedes that the position you’re taking now is a one with respect to a substantial part of our history,鈥� she told him. 

Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the law is clear and irrefutable. 

鈥淭he 14th Amendment鈥檚 fixed, bright-line rule has contributed to the growth and thriving of our nation,鈥� said Wang, the U.S.-born daughter of Taiwanese immigrants. 鈥淚t is workable, and it prevents manipulation. The executive order fails on all those counts. Swaths of American laws would be rendered senseless, thousands of American babies will immediately lose their citizenship, and if you credit the government’s theory, the citizenship of millions of Americans, past, present, and future, could be called into question.鈥�

Ernesto Casta帽eda, director of the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab at American University, is among those who expect the justices to reject the federal government on birthright citizenship, even if 鈥渢hey have been very creative (in the past) when they want to go along with Trump.鈥� 

The court handed the president a number of wins on immigration in 2025, allowing, for example, federal agents to based on scant evidence they were in the country unlawfully. 

The justices might now view the president as less influential and feel more emboldened in going against him, Casta帽eda said: And ending birthright citizenship would rock every sector. 

鈥淚t impacts scientists, it impacts CEOs, it will impact a lot of people that we don’t think about,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hey may be here legally and contribute to the U.S., but they are not citizens yet and again their kids wouldn’t be able to have that citizenship dividend. They would be in a limbo situation. They might prefer to work in another country that makes things easier.鈥�

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1866, a year after the Civil War ended, undid the high court鈥檚 infamous Dred Scott ruling of 1857. In that case, justices stated that enslaved people were and therefore could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. 

Tsion Gurmu, a Houston-based immigration attorney and legal director of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, said the court should overrule what she called a 鈥渄angerous attempt to resurrect a system the 14th Amendment was designed to eradicate.鈥澛�

Her group filed an amicus brief in this case. 

鈥淭he birthright citizenship executive order would deepen (existing) harms by exposing children of Black immigrants to heightened surveillance, detention, and deportation,鈥� she said, adding it would strip their U.S.-born children of access to critical health and nutrition programs, 鈥渋nflicting the wound of a legal regime that once again makes citizenship contingent on ancestry.鈥�

Casta帽eda also sees a return to a pre-14th Amendment America if birthright citizenship were taken away, one where 鈥渟lavery was inheritable. Illegality will go from being a one-generation curse to a multi-generational curse.鈥�

And it would be catastrophic for schools as students鈥� educational rights would be under question, Casta帽eda said. 

Immigrant advocates feel less secure about Temporary Protected Status. 

Viles Dorsainvil, executive director of the in Springfield, Ohio, home to thousands of Haitian immigrants, said his community is bracing for one of three outcomes: The high court could rule in Haitians鈥� favor, allowing them to stay; end the program in a set time period, giving families three to six months to leave; or immediately call for their departure 鈥� either voluntarily or through aggressive immigration enforcement efforts. 

鈥淓verybody would be in limbo and workplaces will be disrupted,鈥� he said of the last scenario. 鈥淭here will be so much disturbance in the community.鈥�

But even if they win their case, Dorsainvil says he鈥檚 worried the government would find other ways to torment Haitians in America. Springfield was the target of and had to close schools during the 2024 election campaign after Trump repeatedly made , outlandish 鈥� and what many saw as racist 鈥� claims against the city鈥檚 Haitian community.

鈥淭he administration will continue to come up with policies that will make immigrants miserable in order for them to self-deport,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hat is the purpose: to force us to leave. We are preparing for that.鈥�

President Donald J. Trump, who watched from the gallery Wednesday in unprecedented fashion while the government made its case, signed an on his first day back in office last year banning birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. His plan would also exclude babies born here whose parents are temporary residents.

Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the Constitution in 1868 by the 14th Amendment, which states: “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.” 

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, arguing for the government, told the court he recognized the amendment was adopted just after the Civil War to grant citizenship to those newly freed from enslavement and their children, 鈥渨hose allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile here.鈥� 

It did not, however, grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens, he said. And, Sauer maintained, unlike newly freed people, 鈥渢hose visitors lack direct and immediate allegiance to the United States.鈥�

鈥淔or aliens, lawful domicile is the status that creates the requisite allegiance,鈥� he said. 鈥淔or decades following the clause’s adoption, commentators recognized that the children of temporary visitors are not citizens, and illegal aliens lack the legal capacity to establish domicile here. Unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations. It demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship.鈥�

Several of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, appeared skeptical of Sauer’s reasoning, peppering him with pointed questions and casting doubt on key elements of his argument. 

Many believe Trump is likely to lose this constitutional battle, though he has that hinged on presidential powers. Conservatives hold a 6-3 majority, with three of the justices in that bloc 鈥� Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett 鈥� Trump appointees from his first term.

Cecillia Wang, the ACLU鈥檚 national legal director and lead attorney in the case that involves several statewide ACLUs and other legal advocacy groups, argued on behalf of the mothers and babies who would be affected by Trump’s order. In a less than three-minute opening statement, she said the 14th amendment is critical to our nation鈥檚 understanding of itself.

鈥淎sk any American what our citizenship rule is, and they’ll tell you: Everyone born here is a citizen alike,鈥� said Wang, whose Taiwanese parents came to the U.S. as graduate students. 鈥淭hat rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of the reach of any government official to destroy.鈥�

Birthright citizenship was codified and protected by the , which provided that 鈥減erson[s] born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.鈥� 

This came decades after another critically related ruling, the 1898 Supreme Court case , which challenged the citizenship of a Chinese-American San Francisco resident. Ark, who was denied re-entry into the U.S. after visiting his parents in China, was found to be protected by the 14th amendment. 

Wang believes that case bolsters her argument. She said, too, Trump鈥檚 executive order would throw the country into chaos. The president left the court minutes into her remarks. 

鈥淭he 14th Amendment’s fixed, bright-line rule has contributed to the growth and thriving of our nation,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t comes from text and history. It is workable, and it prevents manipulation. The executive order fails on all those counts. Swathes of Americans would be rendered stateless. Thousands of American babies will immediately lose their citizenship. And if you credit the government’s theory, the citizenship of millions of Americans 鈥� past, present and future 鈥� could be called into question.鈥�

While some members seemed more amenable to her arguments, conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked her about babies born in the United States who do not automatically become citizens, including the children of ambassadors, for example. 

鈥淚f those who framed and adopted the 14th Amendment had wanted to limit the citizenship test to just those specific groups that you concede fall outside the birthright rule, why didn鈥檛 they refer to those groups?鈥� he asked. 

Wang said the answer was baked into the 14th amendment by the language that guarantees citizenship outside a few rare exceptions of those not 鈥渟ubject to the jurisdiction of the United States.鈥�

Gorsuch said Wang had 鈥済ood stuff on her side.鈥� She, in turn, said the Trump administration鈥檚 proposed approach to citizenship contradicts what earlier leaders sought to achieve. 

鈥淲e can鈥檛 take the current administration鈥檚 policy considerations into account 鈥� to radically reinterpret the 14th amendment,鈥� Wang said, adding she believed those who ratified it did, in fact, consider future immigration. 鈥淐ontrary to the government鈥檚 arguments now, they wanted to grow this country, make sure we had a citizenry, populate the military and settle the country.鈥�

But Sauer, the solicitor general, said birthright citizenship, as it stands, is 鈥渁 powerful pull factor for illegal immigration and rewards illegal aliens who not only violate the immigration laws, but also jump in front of those who follow the rules.鈥� 

And, he said, there is another problem. 

鈥淚t has spawned a sprawling industry of birth tourism as unaccounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have fought to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States,鈥� he said. 

When asked whether the government knew how many women came to the U.S. specifically to give birth, Sauer could not provide a solid figure. 

Several of the justices also questioned Sauer about his key argument that established legal domicile must exist to qualify for birthright citizenship, asking whether it referred to the domicile of parents or their offspring.

鈥淯nder the minimum definition of domicile,鈥� Alito said, 鈥渁 person鈥檚 domicile is the place where he or she intends to make a permanent home.鈥� 

Normally, Alito said, one would think a person who is subject to arrest and removal could not establish domicile. But, he said, we have a unique situation in the United States where people may live here for years and be subject to deportation yet, 鈥渉ave in their minds made a permanent home here and have established roots 鈥� and that raises a humanitarian problem.鈥�

Lower courts on numerous occasions have found Trump鈥檚 order unconstitutional and blocked its implementation. Since it was issued, Trump has launched a massive deportation campaign that has harmed students and schools and become with the American people 鈥� particularly after federal agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January.

“This is potentially the most important civics lesson of a generation,鈥� said Adam Strom, co-founder and executive director of Re-Imagining Migration. 鈥淯ltimately, birthright citizenship is about who gets to claim their place in this country … stripping that in a moment of aggressive immigration enforcement could render (children) stateless.”

Such a person is not recognized as a citizen of any nation and therefore has very limited protection. The U.N. estimated in 2019 that there were more than 4.2 million stateless  people around the world but the actual number is believed to be more than . 

Alejandra V谩zquez Baur, a fellow at The Century Foundation, a progressive think tank, and director of the said undoing birthright citizenship would be a 鈥渄isaster鈥� for hospitals and a 鈥渘ightmare for families鈥� 鈥� regardless of their status 鈥� as they would have to prove citizenship for their newborn child to have basic human rights.   

鈥淚t鈥檚 no coincidence that they鈥檙e seeking to strip birthright citizenship protections for U.S.-born children of immigrants while simultaneously attacking the foundational right to education for all granted by Plyler v. Doe,鈥� she said, referring to the 1982 Supreme Court ruling that a child cannot be denied a public education based on their immigration status. 

鈥淭ogether, these attacks undermine our democracy and threaten to create an underclass of millions of children with uncertain futures and no rights in this country,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t is fundamentally immoral, unconstitutional, anti-child and un-American.鈥�

The court is expected to render a decision in late June or early July.

The 14th Amendment has long been interpreted to guarantee the right of citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil. Three district courts concluded Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order taking away that right was likely unlawful and issued universal preliminary injunctions barring the order from taking effect.

In a 6-3 vote Friday, the high court鈥檚 conservative majority found the lower court judges overstepped. 

鈥淲hen a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” reads the majority opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. 

The court ruled that Trump鈥檚 birthright order would not go into effect for 30 days. During that time, the possibility exists that the plaintiffs could successfully reargue for another nationwide injunction under the new rules set by the Supreme Court. But if they fail, birthright citizenship may no longer be automatic in the 28 states that have not challenged the president鈥檚 directive.

Trump, appearing in the White House briefing room Friday, said 鈥渢he Supreme Court has delivered , the separation of powers and the rule of law.鈥� 

The decision does not address the constitutionality of Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship, considered settled  law for nearly 160 years. But it comes at a time when the president is aggressively trying to extend his powers through a barrage of executive orders that now can no longer be as forcefully blocked across the country by a single federal judge who deems them unlawful or unconstitutional. Judges have issued since Trump took office for a second term in January, the Associated Press reported.

It also coincides with the administration鈥檚 far-reaching and controversial immigration enforcement campaign that has targeted and swept up those without secure legal status, including students. Educators and advocates are particularly concerned about the fate of young children. 

鈥淭he timing could not be worse, with increased ICE activity across the country,” said Adam Strom, executive director of Re-Imagining Migration. “As educators, this makes our jobs even harder. When you fear that your citizenship can be taken away, it’s very hard to learn.”

The ruling came just days after the Supreme Court decided on Monday to to countries other than those in which they were born. Immigrant advocates say both decisions run counter to core American values. 

David C. Baluarte, CUNY School of Law professor and senior associate dean for academic affairs, said if Trump is able to implement his birthright order, some children born in the United States to undocumented parents or those temporarily in the U.S. would be in great jeopardy.

鈥淭hat means they will be an undocumented immigrant here, and everywhere, in perpetuity 鈥� or unless they can convince some country to give them citizenship,鈥� Baluarte said.

Walter Olson, senior fellow at the right-of-center Cato Institute, said now is a 鈥減articularly bad鈥� time for the high court to weaken a critical means to check the power of a 鈥渟cofflaw administration.鈥� 

Olson said the president, through this particular directive, signaled from the outset of his second term that he was seeking to be 鈥渧ery radical鈥� in his authority. He said the birthright issue was a remarkable choice because it was not at all up for debate. 

鈥淭he law was very clear on behalf of birthright citizenship,鈥� Olson said. 鈥淪o, the executive order deserved the immediate unpopularity and outrage that came with it. It鈥檚 settled law.鈥� 

reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Trump argued it 鈥渉as always excluded鈥� people born in the United States but not 鈥渟ubject to the jurisdiction thereof,鈥� including those whose mother was unlawfully present in the country and whose father was not a citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the child鈥檚 birth. 

This same restriction applies to those children born to mothers whose presence in the U.S.聽 is lawful but temporary, including those visiting under the Visa Waiver Program or on a student, work or tourist visa 鈥� if the father is also not a citizen or lawful permanent resident, Trump contends.

Margo Schlanger, law professor and director of the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse at the University of Michigan Law School, said the Supreme Court left open three pathways through which the lower courts can block nationwide policies by the Trump administration they believe to be unlawful.

The first is through a lawsuit filed against the government by a state. The second involves a nationwide class action lawsuit, which can be cumbersome, complicated and time consuming: It鈥檚 often difficult to prove any group of people have enough in common to constitute a class. The third would allow a lower court to 鈥渟et aside鈥� a rule it deems unlawful under the . 

Schlanger notes that every one of the three remaining pathways has 鈥渕ajor鈥� procedural obstacles. She predicts that the state plaintiffs will go back to their district courts and argue that even under these new Supreme Court rules, they still have grounds for a nationwide injunction because that is the only way to guarantee complete relief from an unlawful executive order. 

At the same time, she said, in one or more of the other cases, private plaintiffs might try to expand to a class. Both or either type of case could land the issue back before the Supreme Court 鈥� not for procedural arguments, but to decide the issue on its merits. 

鈥淚 don鈥檛 expect the Trump administration would win at that point,鈥� Schlanger said. 鈥淲hat they were doing is using this case as an opportunity to restrict the authority of the non-Supreme Court federal courts.鈥� 

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said Friday鈥檚 decision leaves Americans with one less tool to fight an 鈥渙ut-of-control鈥� executive branch. 

鈥淭oday, the justices have kneecapped the lower courts鈥� ability to protect Americans from Trump鈥檚 most pernicious policy abuses, making it far more difficult to resolve key questions by requiring additional litigation,鈥� she said in a statement. 鈥淧eople need courts to protect them from this or any other administration wreaking havoc on our nation鈥檚 laws and Americans鈥� lives.鈥�