CSG Law Alert: Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship
On June 30, 2026, in Trump v. Barbara, No. 25–365, in a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which attempted to end birthright citizenship for children born to certain undocumented immigrants and other foreign nationals who were only in the U.S. temporarily.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held 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.”
Writing for a 5-justice majority, Chief Justice Roberts states, “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 600 (Sen. Trumbull). We keep that promise today.”
Justice Kavanaugh concurred with the judgment but dissented, stating, “the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does contravene a federal statute, 8 U. S. C. §1401(a). Congress could—consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.”
Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissented. Writing for the dissent, Justice Thomas states, “the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race. Neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States.”
Despite this important victory for immigration advocates and our clients, several other important decisions from the Supreme Court regarding immigration from this past week struck serious blows:
- Blanche v. Lau, 24-429– A 6-3 decision that holds that U.S. Customs and Border Protection can treat lawful permanent residents (LPR’s) or “green card holders” who are returning from international travel as “applicants for admission” under INA §101(a)(13)(C)(v) without requiring “clear and convincing” evidence that the LPR has actually committed an offense making them inadmissible.
- Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, No. 25–5– A 6-3 decision which essentially holds that a person who is applying for asylum at the border is only considered to have “arrived” in the U.S. when they have crossed the border. As such, the INA does not require an immigration officer to inspect someone at the border and does not entitle that person to apply for asylum.
- Mullin v. Doe et al., No. 25-1083– A 6-3 decision which allows the President and the administration to continue with cancellation of the Haiti and Syria Temporary Protected Status program.
For more information, please contact the authors of this alert or the CSG Law Immigration Group.