Joining Roberts in the majority were Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, creating the narrow majority that rejected the Trump administration’s position on the constitutional question.
The legal battle has been brewing for months. In September, President Trump formally asked the nation’s highest court to uphold his executive order and revisit the long-standing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
The administration’s effort came after multiple federal judges issued rulings blocking enforcement of the executive order, preventing the policy from taking effect while litigation moved through the federal court system.
At the heart of the dispute was President Trump’s argument that the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted far too broadly by political opponents, allowing what critics commonly refer to as “anchor babies” to automatically receive U.S. citizenship despite their parents’ immigration status.
Trump’s executive order sought to establish a new federal policy limiting birthright citizenship in specific situations. The order declared:
“It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth,” Trump’s order stated.
Supporters of the executive order argued that the Citizenship Clause has historically been misunderstood and that the Constitution was never intended to automatically extend citizenship to every child born within the country’s borders regardless of parental immigration status.
The order further maintained that the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment has always contained important constitutional limits. According to the administration, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes certain categories of individuals from receiving automatic citizenship at birth.
Trump’s executive order stated:
“[The] Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text,” the order stated.
With the Supreme Court siding against the administration in a closely divided decision, the constitutional debate over birthright citizenship is expected to remain one of the nation’s most contentious legal and political issues. The ruling marks another significant chapter in the ongoing battle over immigration policy and the scope of executive authority, while leaving conservatives likely to continue pressing for legislative or constitutional changes to address the issue.
