Supreme Court rejects Trump's birthright citizenship order 6-3, upholding 14th Amendment guarantee

The Supreme Court's majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, grounded its ruling in English common law, the nation's founding, and the 14th Amendment's Reconstruction-era history. Roberts wrote that the Framers of the 14th Amendment "extended that promise to 'every free-born person in this land'" and stated from the bench, "We break no new ground here." The majority determined that birth on U.S. soil combined with being subject to U.S. law is sufficient for citizenship, and concluded that Congress never made individual domicile a condition of birthright citizenship.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the lead dissent, spanning 91 pages, arguing that the 14th Amendment was designed specifically to secure citizenship for formerly enslaved people and their descendants, not to extend automatic citizenship to children of foreign nationals unlawfully or temporarily present. Thomas wrote that the majority "adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment" and stated, "I am not sure that today's opinion will stand the test of time." Justice Samuel Alito's dissent opened with the issue of "birth tourists" and argued the ruling preserves incentives to enter or remain in the country unlawfully.

Justice Kavanaugh's position drew significant attention across coverage: while he joined the majority in blocking Trump's executive order, he did so on the basis of immigration statutes from 1940 and 1952 rather than the Constitution, and wrote that Congress could "consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment — amend the relevant federal laws or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship." Trump, in a Truth Social post following the ruling, called on Congress to act legislatively, writing that "no long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary."