On June 30, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued one of the most consequential constitutional and immigration decisions in generations. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees United States citizenship to children born in the United States even when their parents are unlawfully present or only temporarily present in the country. The decision rejects Executive Order 14160 and reaffirms more than 150 years of constitutional history and over a century of Supreme Court precedent.
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment while disagreeing with portions of the Court's reasoning. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch each filed dissenting opinions, offering differing views regarding the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause and the proper methodology for constitutional interpretation.
The litigation arose after President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14160, entitled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. The Order sought to deny automatic citizenship to certain children born in the United States where their parents were either unlawfully present or lawfully present only on a temporary basis. Multiple lawsuits were filed across the country alleging that the Order conflicted with both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. Lower federal courts blocked implementation of the Order before the Supreme Court agreed to review the issue directly.
The central constitutional question focused upon the meaning of a single phrase contained within the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The Administration argued that this language required more than physical presence within the United States and that children born to parents lacking lawful permanent status were not constitutionally entitled to citizenship. The majority rejected that argument after conducting an extensive historical analysis of the common law, the debates surrounding Reconstruction, and the Court's own precedent.
The majority began with English common law and the doctrine of jus soli, or citizenship by place of birth. Under that longstanding rule, nearly every child born within the sovereign's territory became a natural-born subject because the sovereign exercised authority and provided protection over all persons physically present within its borders. Only narrow historical exceptions existed, including children of foreign diplomats and individuals born outside the sovereign's territorial control. According to the Court, that common-law understanding crossed the Atlantic and became deeply embedded in early American law.
The opinion next examined the historical significance of Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Court explained that Dred Scott rejected the common-law understanding of citizenship by concluding that persons of African descent could not be citizens of the United States. The Reconstruction Congress responded by adopting the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and, ultimately, the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority concluded that the Citizenship Clause was specifically designed to constitutionalize the traditional rule of birthright citizenship while permanently repudiating Dred Scott and removing citizenship from the shifting winds of politics.
The Court devoted considerable attention to the debates surrounding ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. It concluded that the framers intentionally employed language reflecting the existing common-law understanding of citizenship. According to the majority, the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' refers to the sovereign authority of the United States to enforce its laws over those physically present within its borders, not to questions of immigration status, domicile, or permanent allegiance.
The Court also reaffirmed United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the landmark 1898 decision holding that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a United States citizen notwithstanding federal restrictions on Chinese immigration. The majority described Wong Kim Ark as the definitive interpretation of the Citizenship Clause and found no persuasive historical basis for limiting or overruling its holding. Instead, the Court concluded that Wong Kim Ark faithfully reflected both the common law and the original public understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Importantly, the Court emphasized the limited scope of its holding. The decision concerns only citizenship acquired at birth. It does not confer lawful immigration status upon parents, prevent removal proceedings, create eligibility for immigration benefits, or otherwise modify the Immigration and Nationality Act. Parents remain subject to all applicable provisions of federal immigration law regardless of the citizenship status of their children.
Justice Thomas authored the principal dissent, joined by Justice Gorsuch. He argued that the majority placed undue reliance upon English common law and historical practice rather than focusing upon the original meaning of the constitutional text itself. Justice Thomas maintained that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' requires a narrower understanding of political allegiance than the majority adopted. He further questioned the continuing breadth of United States v. Wong Kim Ark and argued that the Court should revisit assumptions that have governed birthright citizenship for more than a century.
Justice Alito authored a separate dissent concentrating on the language of the Citizenship Clause. He reasoned that being physically present and subject to ordinary criminal and civil laws does not necessarily satisfy the constitutional requirement of being 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States. In his view, the majority's interpretation deprives those words of independent meaning and fails to give adequate weight to the constitutional text.
Justice Gorsuch also wrote separately. While joining Justice Thomas's dissent, he emphasized broader concerns regarding constitutional methodology. His opinion focused on the judiciary's obligation to interpret constitutional provisions according to their original public meaning rather than relying principally upon historical practice or longstanding precedent. His writing reflects a continuing commitment to originalist principles that may influence future constitutional litigation.
Although the dissents present thoughtful and substantial constitutional arguments, the majority opinion now represents controlling law. Unless the Constitution is amended or the Supreme Court revisits the issue in a future case, children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully present or temporarily present remain citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.
For immigrant families, the decision provides significant constitutional certainty. For immigration practitioners, it preserves one of the foundational principles upon which American nationality law has rested for generations. At the same time, families should understand that the decision does not eliminate the need to pursue lawful immigration status where appropriate. Questions concerning visas, adjustment of status, removal proceedings, waivers, asylum, and naturalization remain governed by existing federal immigration statutes and regulations.
Saluja Law will continue to monitor developments in constitutional and immigration law and provide timely analysis regarding decisions that affect immigrants, their families, employers, and communities throughout the United States. If you have questions regarding your immigration status or how this decision may affect your family, contact Saluja Law to discuss your specific circumstances and available legal options.