Key facts
- The Supreme Court rejected President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship.
- The Court ruled 5-4 that children born in the U.S. are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, emphasizing birthplace as the primary determinant of citizenship.
- Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing parental political allegiance is necessary for citizenship.
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson directly responded to Justice Thomas' dissent, characterizing the Reconstruction Amendments as an 'anti-caste, anti-subordination reset'.
- Following the ruling, the DOJ will prioritize investigations into 'birth tourism'.
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an executive order by President Donald Trump that sought to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily. In a 5-4 decision, the majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, affirmed that birth on U.S. soil guarantees citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, regardless of parental immigration status.
Roberts' opinion drew heavily on English common law and the historical context of the Fourteenth Amendment, concluding that birthplace has always been the primary factor for citizenship. He stated, "We keep that promise today."
The dissent, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, argued that birth alone is insufficient for citizenship and that parents must have a deeper political allegiance or relationship to the U.S. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a notable response to Thomas' dissent, characterized the Reconstruction Amendments as an "anti-caste, anti-subordination reset for the Nation," directly challenging Thomas' interpretation.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling, the Department of Justice has stated it will prioritize investigations into 'birth tourism,' a practice where individuals travel to the U.S. specifically to give birth and obtain citizenship for their child.