Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship

The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that birthright citizenship is guaranteed, regardless of parental citizenship status, in a ruling rejecting President Trump’s executive order aimed at limiting citizenship for children born to parents who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

The ruling stated, “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.”

This case, known as Trump v. Barbara, revolves around an executive order signed by Trump upon his return to office aimed at “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”

The order stated that while the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to those born or naturalized in the U.S., it also suggested that this right does not extend to everyone born on U.S. soil.

According to the executive order, citizenship would not be granted to individuals born if:

• Their mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. at the time of birth, and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
• Their mother was in the U.S. on a visa, yet the father was also not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

This policy was to apply to individuals born after a specific date, set to be February 19, 2025.

However, the court decided, in a narrow 5-4 decision, that children born to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present can still be recognized as citizens.

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by four other justices, emphasized the principle of “jus soli,” translating to “right of the soil,” which provides automatic citizenship to anyone born within a country’s territory.

Roberts highlighted that before the American Revolution, those born within the king’s territory were considered subjects. This principle continued post-Revolution and found its place in the Fourteenth Amendment.

“In a Nation of immigrants—an ‘asylum for mankind,’ in Thomas Paine’s words—jus soli’s broad scope took on particular importance,” Roberts noted, referencing Paine’s influential text, “Common Sense.”

This ruling represents a setback for the Trump administration’s agenda, especially noting that Trump personally attended the arguments, underscoring its significance to him.

Opposing justices included Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, with Kavanaugh agreeing partially but expressing dissent regarding the majority’s reasoning.

Thomas argued that the majority misinterpreted the Citizenship Clause, stating, “Both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race.” He added that citizenship was not guaranteed for those who weren’t established within the U.S.

“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans… The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors,” Thomas concluded. He emphasized that the Civil Rights Act provided citizenship to those who were both “born in the United States” and “not subject to any foreign power.”