The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed by Congress on June 13, 1866 following the Civil War, enshrined birthright citizenship as a constitutional guarantee, granting U.S. citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States. The United States has lived and grown under this principle for more than a century.

The Fourteenth Amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order attempting to restrict birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented parents. Multiple lawsuits quickly challenged the order as unconstitutional, ultimately bringing the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Barbara, decided June 30, 2026, is among the most consequential immigration decisions in recent years, with significant implications for families, immigration law, and federal agencies. Below is a summary of the decision and its impact on birthright citizenship going forward.

The Supreme Court held, by a 6–3 vote, that birthright citizenship remains protected under the Fourteenth Amendment despite the Trump Administration's effort to narrow its scope. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully present or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore acquire U.S. citizenship at birth under the Citizenship Clause.

In reaching that conclusion, the Court relied heavily on stare decisis—the principle that courts should adhere to established precedent when resolving similar legal questions. The majority emphasized that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in direct response to Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their descendants. The Court also relied on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that a child born in the United States to immigrant parents is a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, regardless of the parents' immigration status or domicile.

Historically, the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant citizenship rights to children born to foreign diplomats in the United States as diplomats enjoy diplomatic immunity and therefore are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

In dissent, Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito argued that citizenship should depend, at least in part, on a parent's domicile and allegiance to the United States. Under that approach, children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary foreign visitors would not automatically become U.S. citizens at birth. The majority rejected that theory, reasoning that domicile-based allegiance has never been the constitutional standard for birthright citizenship. The Court warned that adopting the dissent's approach would upend the longstanding understanding of the Citizenship Clause and exclude many U.S.-born children from constitutional protection.

The majority also emphasized the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, finding no indication that Congress intended to condition birthright citizenship on a parent's immigration status or domicile. Instead, the Court reaffirmed that the Citizenship Clause applies to all children born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

By reaffirming this foundational constitutional protection, the Court preserved the longstanding rule that children born on U.S. soil are entitled to citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, regardless of their parents' immigration status.