The U.S. Supreme Court struck down an executive order from President Donald Trump that sought to end automatic citizenship for children born in the United States [1].
The ruling preserves a cornerstone of American immigration and civil law, ensuring that the status of parents does not determine the citizenship of their children born on U.S. soil.
In a decision issued June 30, 2026 [2], the justices voted six-three to reject the administration's attempt to limit birthright citizenship [3]. The Court said that the executive order was unconstitutional, as it conflicted with the long-settled interpretation of the 14th Amendment [4].
Under the 14th Amendment, any person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen [4]. The majority opinion said that this constitutional guarantee cannot be overridden by executive action, a finding that leaves little room for similar attempts by Congress to alter the rule [5].
The administration said that the president possessed the authority to define who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to prevent what it described as an incentive for illegal immigration. However, the Court said that the text of the Constitution is explicit regarding birthright [4].
Legal analysts said that the decision reinforces the limits of executive power regarding constitutional interpretations. By upholding the existing standard, the Court ensures that millions of children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents retain their legal status [4].
“The Court ruled 6-3 that an executive order ending automatic citizenship for children born in the US is unconstitutional.”
This decision affirms that the 14th Amendment provides a nearly absolute guarantee of citizenship by birth, regardless of the immigration status of the parents. By ruling that an executive order cannot supersede this constitutional mandate, the Supreme Court has limited the ability of the presidency to unilaterally alter citizenship laws, effectively signaling that any change to birthright citizenship would likely require a constitutional amendment rather than a legislative or executive shift.
