Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship

Estimated Time to Read: 7 minutes

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment‘s Citizenship Clause. In Trump v. Barbara, the Court rejected President Donald Trump’s (R) executive order seeking to narrow birthright citizenship, concluding that such a change cannot be accomplished through executive action and, according to the majority, is inconsistent with the Constitution itself.

The decision is among the most consequential constitutional rulings on immigration and citizenship in decades. While the majority reaffirmed more than a century of precedent, four justices wrote separately to argue that the Constitution could permit Congress to narrow birthright citizenship in the future.

For Texas, a state at the center of national immigration debates, the ruling preserves the current constitutional framework while clarifying the limits of state and federal authority over citizenship.

For reference, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says,

“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.”

Court Affirms Birthright Citizenship

Writing for a five-justice majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that the Citizenship Clause incorporates the longstanding common law principle of jus soli, meaning citizenship based on birth within the nation’s territory. The Court held that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to being subject to the governing authority of the United States rather than the immigration status of one’s parents. As a result, children born in the United States are citizens unless they fall within historically recognized exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats or certain historical tribal sovereignty circumstances.

The majority relied heavily on the historical development of citizenship, beginning with English common law, continuing through the rejection of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), and culminating in the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. It also reaffirmed the Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, concluding that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to nearly every child born on American soil regardless of whether the parents are permanent residents, temporary visitors, or unlawfully present.

The Court further emphasized that the Constitution contains no language conditioning citizenship on lawful presence, domicile, or immigration status. Instead, it noted that terms such as “lawful,” “temporary,” “mother,” and “father” appear in the executive order but not in the Citizenship Clause itself.

Kavanaugh Says Congress Could Act

Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that President Trump’s executive order could not take effect, but for a significantly different reason.

Rather than concluding the Constitution itself guarantees citizenship in these circumstances, Kavanaugh argued that existing federal statute, specifically 8 U.S.C. §1401(a), currently grants citizenship at birth using language that mirrors the Fourteenth Amendment. In his view, the Court should have resolved the case on statutory grounds without deciding the broader constitutional question.

Kavanaugh also rejected what he viewed as Wong Kim Ark‘s assumption that the historical exceptions to birthright citizenship are permanently fixed. He argued that constitutional principles may be applied to modern circumstances not contemplated in 1868 and suggested Congress could constitutionally establish new exceptions for children born to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States. Until Congress acts, however, he concluded the executive order conflicts with existing federal law.

Thomas Rejects the Majority’s Historical Interpretation

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, argued that the majority fundamentally misread the history of the Citizenship Clause.

Thomas maintained that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to guarantee citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States, not to everyone physically born within the country’s borders. He argued that Reconstruction-era lawmakers repeatedly described citizenship as requiring complete jurisdiction, primary allegiance, and domicile rather than mere territorial presence. In his view, children of temporary visitors and many foreign nationals remained subject to another sovereign and therefore were outside the Citizenship Clause.

Thomas also surveyed executive branch decisions, congressional debates, legal treatises, and early judicial opinions that, he argued, consistently interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to exclude children born to temporary visitors who remained domiciled abroad. He concluded that the Court improperly transformed the Fourteenth Amendment into a broader immigration policy than the Reconstruction Congress ever intended.

Alito Warns of Policy Consequences

Justice Samuel Alito wrote separately to argue that the majority adopted an overly broad understanding of birthright citizenship while dismissing substantial historical evidence supporting a narrower interpretation.

Like Justice Thomas, Alito argued that “subject to the jurisdiction” referred to complete political allegiance rather than simple territorial authority. He maintained that the historical record surrounding the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Wong Kim Ark supported limiting citizenship where parents remained subject to another sovereign.

Alito also emphasized the practical consequences of the decision, pointing to modern illegal immigration and birth tourism as developments unknown to the Reconstruction Congress. He argued that today’s ruling largely removes the question of birthright citizenship from democratic policymaking unless Congress or the Constitution itself is changed.

Gorsuch Focuses on the Limits of the Court’s Decision

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a brief separate dissent focusing less on the ultimate meaning of the Citizenship Clause and more on judicial restraint.

He argued that the executive order likely has constitutional applications in at least some circumstances, particularly regarding children born to parents without meaningful ties to the United States. Because the plaintiffs sought facial invalidation of the executive order, Gorsuch concluded the Court should not have struck it down in its entirety while unresolved factual situations remain. Instead, he suggested future litigation should address individual applications of the order as specific cases arise.

What the Birthright Citizenship Ruling Means for Texas

For Texas, the decision leaves immigration enforcement authority largely unchanged while preserving the existing constitutional rules governing citizenship.

Texas cannot independently redefine who is a United States citizen. Birth certificates issued in Texas continue to document births occurring within the state, while citizenship remains a matter of federal constitutional and statutory law.

The ruling also limits the ability of future presidential administrations to alter birthright citizenship through executive action alone. If policymakers wish to narrow birthright citizenship, the Court’s majority indicates such a change would require a constitutional amendment rather than executive action. Four justices, however, left open the possibility that Congress could enact legislation narrowing birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution, setting the stage for future litigation should Congress attempt such a reform.

For Texas lawmakers, the ruling does not affect the state’s authority to enforce immigration laws where permitted by federal law, cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, regulate eligibility for certain state benefits where federal law allows, or pursue additional border security initiatives. It does, however, reinforce that citizenship itself remains governed by the Constitution and federal law rather than state legislation.

Looking Ahead

The Court’s decision preserves the constitutional understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than a century. Yet the sharply divided opinions demonstrate that disagreement over the Citizenship Clause remains alive.

The majority viewed the Fourteenth Amendment as codifying a broad rule of citizenship based on birth within the United States. The dissenters argued that history instead supports citizenship based on birth combined with complete allegiance and domicile. Justice Kavanaugh charted a middle course, concluding that existing federal law controls today while suggesting Congress may possess greater authority than the majority recognizes.

For Texas and the nation, the debate over birthright citizenship is unlikely to end with this decision. Instead, it has shifted from the executive branch to Congress and, perhaps eventually, back to the Supreme Court.

---