Supreme Court affirms birthright citizenship!

By Sheridan Green

6/30/2026

The Supreme Court this morning issued a long-awaited opinion in Trump v. Barbara with the majority holding that "Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause."

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagen, Barret, and Jackson. Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment and dissented in part. Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito dissented.

The principal fight has been over what the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means in the 14th amendment, who it was meant to exclude, and whether that exclusion reached children born to parents with no lawful or permanent status.

Trump issued an Executive Order on Jan. 20, 2025, asserting that children born in the United States of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and thus do not qualify for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.   

The Court explained that under the English common law, children born within the sovereign’s dominions owed a natural allegiance to the sovereign who protected them at birth, regardless of how “momentary and uncertain” their presence. Such children were therefore “natural-born subjects.” The same rule applied to children born of parents subject to expulsion. The rule’s exceptions were narrow: children born in lands the sovereign did not control, children born in areas temporarily outside the sovereign’s control, and children of foreign ministers.

The Court also explains that this common law understanding of jus soli was carried to all fifty states and was the understanding that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and later the 14th amendment intended to mirror (not change). The Citizenship Clause’s key phrase “subject to the jurisdiction”—refers to the power of the United States to govern those within its territory, and this, of course, includes “private individuals who traveled to the United States for ‘business or caprice.’"