On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. Barbara, affirming that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country.
Under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, “[a]ll 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.” On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14160, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, stating that children born in the United States of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present here are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States—and thus do not qualify for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Several parties filed suit arguing that the Executive Order violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The District Court agreed and temporarily halted the Order’s enforcement. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Order violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
The concept of birthright citizenship dates to English common law, where 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 was. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause uses similar language to the common law’s criteria for citizenship, stating that a child born on American soil and subject to American law is an American citizen.
The Court examined its own previous decisions regarding birthright citizenship, including the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, where the Court departed from the common law and adopted the view that citizenship was tied to blood instead of soil. However, during the Civil War, Attorney General Edward Bates issued an opinion rejecting the premise that “citizenship is ever hereditary,” and declaring that there are very few exceptions to this rule, including “the small and admitted class of the natural-born…children of foreign ministers and the like.” Following the war, Congress sought to turn Bates’s opinion into law by enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The idea was that what the Civil Rights Act began, the Fourteenth Amendment, and its repudiation of Dred Scott, would finish.
The decision hinged on the Citizenship Clause’s key phrase “subject to the jurisdiction”, which refers to the power of the United States to govern those within its territory. The narrow exceptions involve instances where exercising jurisdiction would “degrade the dignity” of “foreign sovereigns”—most frequently in the case of “foreign ministers.” However, private individuals present in the United States on a temporary basis, such as for business or pleasure, were “amenable to the jurisdiction of the country.” Thereby, children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present here are thus subject to the Nation’s jurisdiction.
Arguments for limiting birthright citizenship to those “domiciled” in the United States failed because these arguments propose that natural allegiance through birth on United States territory was no longer sufficient for citizenship, and that some greater quantum of allegiance (based on domicile) was required. There is little evidence for this proposal, including the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. The Court ultimately ruled that if Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the precise language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design; words appearing frequently in the Executive Order— “mother,” “father,” “lawful,” “temporary”—are absent from the Clause.
If you are unsure how this ruling might impact you or your loved ones, the experienced attorneys at Murray Osorio PLLC are here to help. Call (800) 929-7142 or contact us online to schedule a consultation today.