Supreme Court Blocks Trump’s Effort to Restore Order to Birthright Citizenship
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
In a controversial 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s executive order to end automatic citizenship for children of non-citizens, ignoring concerns about border security and the original intent of the Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a 6-3 ruling that halts President Donald Trump’s bold executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, leaned heavily on English common law, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision, dismissing the administration’s efforts to address the abuse of birthright citizenship. Roberts claimed the administration failed to provide enough evidence to justify a reinterpretation of the law, insisting that the Framers intended the amendment to apply to 'every free-born person in this land,' regardless of the modern realities of illegal immigration and exploitation of the system.
Roberts was joined by Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and the liberal bloc—Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan. In a concurring opinion, Justice Jackson argued that the Fourteenth Amendment reflects so-called universal principles, ignoring the challenges posed by unchecked immigration. Justice Kavanaugh, while siding with the majority that the order conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act, disappointingly did not find the order unconstitutional and suggested Congress could still act to close loopholes.
Three justices dissented. Justice Clarence Thomas rightly criticized the majority’s historical analysis and argued that the amendment could be interpreted to allow the president’s reasonable restrictions. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch also filed strong dissenting opinions, standing up for the rule of law and national sovereignty.
President Trump called the decision 'too bad for our country' and urged Congress to act quickly to end birthright citizenship, vowing his full support for legislative efforts to protect American citizenship. The ACLU, which represented plaintiffs challenging the order, predictably celebrated the ruling as a victory for open borders. A recent study warned that the proposed policy could have created a multigenerational underclass, but supporters argue that ending automatic citizenship is necessary to preserve the integrity of the nation.