SCOTUS rejects Trump's birthright citizenship policy
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
People demonstrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump's expected arrival on April 01, 2026 in Washington, DC. Photo: Al Drago/Getty Images.
The Supreme Court struck down President Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship on Tuesday, reaffirming the long-held belief that any person born on American soil is a citizen.
Why it matters: The decision is a blow to Trump, who sought to limit by executive fiat who is eligible for American citizenship as part of his widespread immigration crackdown.
What they're saying: "Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights— to freely participate in our political community," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the five-justice majority.
- "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."
Yes, but: In a dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said "[b]oth the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race."
- "Because many potential applications of the President's Order are consistent with the original public meaning of the Citizenship Clause, I respectfully dissent."
Threat level: If the administration had succeeded in its arguments, millions of babies would no longer be eligible for citizenship, losing their rights to work authorization, safety net provisions, voting and more.
- Some of those children could have become stateless with no guaranteed rights at all if their parents' home countries refused to grant them citizenship.
Prior to the decision, Trump had lambasted Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — both of whom he had appointed — on Truth Social, anticipating that they would vote against him on birthright citizenship.
- "I don't want loyalty, but I do want and expect it for our Country," he said.
Catch up quick: Trump's order sought to limit birthright citizenship to people who have at least one legally present parent in the U.S.
- The order was based on a once-fringe position that the 14th Amendment doesn't expand to those present in America illegally because they aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of America, as required in the amendment.
- The majority of the justices appeared skeptical of the Trump administration's arguments during the case's initial oral arguments, including Roberts.
Zoom in: Two of Trump's three appointees sided, at least in part, with the president.
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred with the judgment but disagreed with the court's reasoning, arguing that Trump's executive order violated a separate immigration statute.
- Thomas was joined by Gorsuch, who wrote that "By definition, temporary visitors to this country do not choose to make a permanent home here, and their children thus cannot claim the privilege of citizenship."
- "Because the executive order is lawful at least to this extent, respondents' facial challenge must fail."
By the numbers: Two-thirds of Americans support preserving the 14th Amendment's right to birthright citizenship.
- That includes the majority of Independents and many Republicans.
- Roughly 53% of Trump's most religious voting block — white evangelical Protestants — say they support the constitutionally guaranteed right.
Go deeper: What's at risk if SCOTUS sides with Trump in birthright citizenship case
Editor's note: This story was updated with additional information and context throughout.
