Birthright Citizenship at the Supreme Court: The Ruling and What It Means

Current as of July 28, 2026.

On June 30, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365 (U.S. June 30, 2026), striking down Executive Order 14160 as unconstitutional and confirming that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The executive order that threatened to reverse more than 125 years of settled law is not in effect and never was.

What Birthright Citizenship Is

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, provides that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. For more than a century, that language has been understood to confer citizenship on virtually every child born on United States soil, regardless of the immigration status of the child’s parents.

The Supreme Court first applied this principle to the children of noncitizens in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), holding that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents was a United States citizen. That decision has governed birthright citizenship law ever since.

This principle is also codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which designates as nationals and citizens persons born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Executive Order 14160

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order directed federal agencies not to recognize citizenship for children born in the United States when neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. The stated effective date was February 19, 2025.

Federal courts blocked the order before that date arrived. District judges in Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Hampshire each issued injunctions, finding that the order directly contradicted the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the holding of Wong Kim Ark. EO 14160 was enjoined before it ever took effect.

How the Case Reached the Supreme Court: Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025)

The government appealed the district court injunctions on an emergency basis. On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., No. 24A884, 606 U.S. ___ (2025), ruling 6 to 3 on a narrow procedural question.

The CASA Court did not decide whether EO 14160 was constitutional. The sole question before the Court was whether district courts had exceeded their authority by issuing injunctions that applied nationwide to everyone, not just the specific plaintiffs before the court. The Court held that such universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority” that Congress has granted to federal courts, and that relief must be limited to what is necessary to protect the parties who actually brought the case.

After CASA, each district court narrowed its injunction to cover only named plaintiffs or certified class members. EO 14160 remained blocked during this period for those within the scope of those orders. The constitutional question, whether the order violated the Fourteenth Amendment at all, was still pending.

The Constitutional Ruling: Trump v. Barbara (June 2026)

After the District of New Hampshire certified a class of children who would be affected if EO 14160 ever took effect, the class-wide injunction became the vehicle for resolving the merits. The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment, taking the case directly from the district court as Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365 (U.S. June 30, 2026), without waiting for the First Circuit to rule.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on April 1, 2026, and issued its decision on June 30, 2026. A divided Court held that EO 14160 violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The majority opinion reaffirmed Wong Kim Ark as controlling precedent and rejected the government’s argument that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of noncitizens present in the United States without lawful status. The Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully present, or present on temporary nonimmigrant visas, are citizens of the United States from the moment of birth.

What the Ruling Means

EO 14160 is unconstitutional. It is not in effect.

A critical point worth understanding: EO 14160 was enjoined by federal courts before its February 19, 2025 effective date. It never took effect. No federal agency implemented the order. Agency implementation plans, including those prepared by USCIS and the Social Security Administration, were expressly conditioned on the injunctions being lifted, which they never were. No child was denied citizenship under the order during the period it was nominally on the books. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Barbara settled the constitutional question permanently, but families were protected throughout by the lower court injunctions that remained in place.

No federal agency now has lawful authority to deny citizenship to a child born in the United States on the basis of the immigration status of the child’s parents.

What This Does Not Change

The Barbara decision did not alter the general requirements for birthright citizenship. Children born in the United States to foreign diplomats who hold full diplomatic immunity are still not considered born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and are not citizens at birth. The decision addressed only the government’s attempt to extend that narrow diplomatic exception to all noncitizens, which the Court rejected.

If you have questions about how this ruling applies to your family’s specific situation, the attorneys at Strasser Asatrian LLC are available to review your case and advise you on next steps.

---

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific. Please consult an attorney about your individual situation.