US Supreme Court strikes down Trump order restricting birthright citizenship

In a major blow to President Donald Trump's immigration agenda, the US Supreme Court struck down his order limiting birthright citizenship and reaffirmed law granting citizenship to nearly all children born in America.

In Short

• Trump wants to restrict citizenship to children of citizens or permanent residents
• US Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling strikes down his birthright citizenship order
• Ruling a setback to Trump's immigration agenda, preserves long-standing precedent

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship, in a landmark ruling with far-reaching implications for immigration policy and constitutional law. The court reaffirmed the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment that grants citizenship to nearly all children born on American soil.

The executive order, signed on Trump's first day back in office in January 2025, sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the US if their parents were either in the country illegally or were present on temporary visas. The measure would have restricted citizenship primarily to children with at least one parent who was a US citizen or lawful permanent resident.

In a major setback to Trump's immigration agenda, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, upheld a lower court order blocking the executive directive.

The Republican president has long argued that the current interpretation of birthright citizenship encourages abuse of the immigration system, while critics have accused his administration of pursuing discriminatory immigration policies.

The case centred on the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which states that "all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

For more than 150 years, the provision has generally been understood to guarantee citizenship to children born in the United States regardless of their parents' immigration status, with limited exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats or enemy occupying forces.

Trump's administration argued that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" should be interpreted more narrowly, excluding children whose parents are in the country illegally or are residing temporarily on student, work or other non-permanent visas.

Government lawyers contended that citizenship should be limited to children of people whose "primary allegiance" is to the United States, including citizens and lawful permanent residents. They argued that such allegiance is established through lawful and permanent residence in the country.

During arguments before the court, US Solicitor General D John Sauer defended the administration's position, arguing that the Citizenship Clause was intended primarily to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their descendants.

Sauer also cited concerns over what he described as an expanding "birth tourism" industry, claiming that foreign nationals travel to the United States specifically to secure citizenship for their children. However, when questioned by the justices, he acknowledged that there was no definitive data quantifying the scale of the practice.

However, challengers maintained that the Constitution, longstanding legal precedent and more than a century of judicial interpretation overwhelmingly support birthright citizenship.

The case before the Supreme Court arose from a lawsuit filed in New Hampshire by parents and children who argued that their citizenship rights would be threatened if the executive order were allowed to take effect.

TRUMP VOWS LEGISLATIVE PUSH

Following the ruling, Trump signalled that he would pursue legislation to restrict birthright citizenship rather than seek a constitutional amendment. In a post on Truth Social, the US President described the court's decision as disappointing but insisted Congress could still act.

"The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process. No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!"

Legal experts had warned that Trump's directive could have had sweeping consequences. Some estimates suggest that as many as 250,000 babies born annually in the US could be affected, while millions of families might have been required to prove the citizenship status of their newborn children.

The case also attracted unusual attention because Trump became the first sitting US president to attend Supreme Court oral arguments. He was present when the hearing began but departed before the proceedings concluded.

However, the ruling represents a rare obstacle for Trump's immigration agenda. Since his return to office, the Supreme Court's conservative majority has largely sided with the administration on several immigration-related disputes.

The verdict also marks the second time this year that the nation's highest court has invalidated a major Trump policy initiative. In February, the court struck down the president's sweeping global tariffs, delivering another significant blow to his administration.

- Ends