Supreme Court Ruling on Birthright Citizenship: What to Know

The Supreme Court is poised to rule on the future of birthright citizenship, a decision that promises to be its most consequential since the overturning of abortion rights jurisprudence in 2022. The ruling in Trump vs Barbara, which will be announced in the coming days as the Court wraps up its term, touches all the most important themes of Trump’s political career—a hard line on immigration, an expansive view of executive power and a willingness to challenge norms that have guided American public life for decades. Trump is not optimistic about a ruling in his favor after conservative justices sounded skeptical during oral arguments. Nonetheless, with waves of illegal immigration testing the limits of a federal right initially designed to protect freed slaves after the Civil War, the case is also shaping up to be a test of how much the Supreme Court’s six conservative justices will stand up to the president who appointed three of them. What Is the Birthright Citizenship Lawsuit? Moments after taking office for his second term, Trump signed an executive order titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” Trump's executive action seeks to prevent children born on U.S. soil from automatically receiving citizenship if neither parent was an American citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of birth. Read More on Politics Donald Trump Issues Fresh Warning to Iran as JD Vance Begins Talks 7 min read Donald Trump Issues Fresh Warning to Iran as JD Vance Begins Talks ICE Court Arrest Policies ‘Devoid of Rational Explanation’—Judge 4 min read ICE Court Arrest Policies ‘Devoid of Rational Explanation’—Judge Trump Enters a Cage Fight in the Emperor’s New Clothes 10 min read Trump Enters a Cage Fight in the Emperor’s New Clothes Baby Neysel was born to an immigrant family from Guatemala during COVID. Baby Neysel was born to an immigrant family from Guatemala during COVID. | John Moore/Getty Images The concept of birthright citizenship has long been established in the U.S., with Section 1 of the 14th Amendment stating: "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." The administration argues the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary visa holders. Trump's executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship has been blocked by multiple federal courts and has not taken effect. The legal challenges eventually reached the Supreme Court in a case titled Trump v. Barbara, which heard arguments earlier this year. When Will the Supreme Court Rule on Birthright Citizenship? The Supreme Court typically releases its remaining opinions by late June or early July before concluding its term and beginning its summer recess. The court is scheduled to issue opinions on Thursday morning at 10 a.m. EST, though it is not known whether the birthright citizenship case will be among them. The decision is expected by early July, at the latest. What Trump Has Said About Birthright Citizenship Trump has repeatedly argued that birthright citizenship is being abused and should be ended or restricted. In a March 2026 Truth Social post, he wrote that the policy “is not about rich people from China, and the rest of the World, who want their children, and hundreds of thousands more, FOR PAY, to ridiculously become citizens,” he wrote on Truth Social in late March. Around the time the Supreme Court considered the issue, in mid-May, Trump also posted that birthright citizenship “was not meant” for modern immigration and instead applied to “the babies of slaves” following the Civil War, urging the Court to reconsider the practice. Trump has sharply criticized the Supreme Court on social media, predicting the justices will rule against him on birthright citizenship. "A negative ruling on Birthright Citizenship, on top of the recent Supreme Court Tariff catastrophe, is not Economically sustainable for the United States of America!" Trump wrote in a lengthy post on Truth Social in May. In an April post, he said, "If they [the Supreme Court] rule against our Country on Birthright Citizenship, which they probably will, it will be even worse, if that’s possible. It will cost America massive amounts of money but, more importantly, it will cost America its DIGNITY!" Oral Arguments: Key Takeaways Broad skepticism from the bench: Both conservative and liberal justices questioned the Trump administration’s legal reasoning, especially its interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Roberts pushed back sharply: Chief Justice John Roberts challenged the government’s attempt to expand narrow historical exceptions (like diplomats’ children) into a broad rule excluding large groups of immigrants, calling the argument difficult to justify. Conservatives raised doubts too: Justice Neil Gorsuch and other conservatives scrutinized the historical basis and legal sources behind the administration’s argument, signaling discomfort with its reinterpretation of citizenship law. What Experts Think David Franklin expects the Supreme Court to reject the Trump administration’s argument, WTTW reported. He's a law professor at DePaul University and a former law clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who also previously served as Illinois solicitor general. “When I teach constitutional law, I tell my students that there are six building blocks of constitutional law — text, precedent, structure, history, purpose and consequences,” Franklin said. “Without going into detail, on all six of those building blocks, this birthright citizenship executive (order) is a dead-bang loser, and I think even this Supreme Court will see through it.” On the other hand, John Eastman, a law professor and Claremont Institute fellow, argues that Wong Kim Ark (1898), which granted birthright citizenship to children of legal immigrants, does not apply to undocumented immigrants. He contends that the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted and does not guarantee automatic citizenship for all U.S.-born children. Historical Support for Ending Birthright Citizenship Opponents of birthright citizenship now tend to be Republican, but this wasn’t always the case. There was once bipartisan support for denying citizenship to children of illegal aliens. Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, who became majority leader, authored the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993, which carried provisions that would exclude children of illegal immigrants from the provisions of the 14th Amendment. The bill, which was never passed, stated that children of parents who were citizens of another country and were not lawfully admitted to the United States, “shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Reid later apologized for authoring that legislation and said he had not understood the issue. Nearly 30 years later, birthright citizenship had become a non-negotiable plank of the Democratic Party’s platform, as Trump assailed immigrants, legal and illegal, with his rhetoric and policies in his first term. On the right, the question of whether the 14th Amendment’s protections applied to children of illegal immigrants remained a popular question and a fringe legal theory. Conservative lawyer John Eastman made the case in a controversial 2020 Newsweek opinion piece, in which he attacked Kamala Harris's candidacy. “The Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Wong Kim Ark is not to the contrary,“ Eastman wrote of the landmark ruling that is being challenged before the Supreme Court in Barbara. “At issue there was a child born to Chinese immigrants who had become lawful, permanent residents in the United States—'domiciled' was the legally significant word used by the Court,” he said. "But that was the extent of the Court's holding (as opposed to broader language that was dicta, and therefore not binding). Indeed, the Supreme Court has never held that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen.” Newsweek apologized for running the Eastman piece on Harris. Which Countries Have Birthright Citizenship? Trump has repeatedly falsely stated that the U.S. is the only country to grant birthright citizenship to people born in the country. The U.S. is one of about 30 countries that do, according to the CIA World Factbook. Birthright citizenship is most common in the Americas, though the scope of the right varies by country. Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Belize, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and others grant a form of birthright citizenship. Is This Article Fair? Select an option to vote. You can change it anytime. Most European, Asian and African countries follow jus sanguinis, or citizenship based on ancestry, or a combination of ancestry-based and territorial principles. Germany and France, for example, grant citizenship to some children born on their soil if their parents meet certain residency or legal-status requirements. Countries such as Japan, China and Saudi Arabia generally do not grant automatic citizenship solely on the basis of birth within their territory. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.