Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship in Trump v. Barbara
July 02, 2026
- Garrett D. Steck
By: Garrett Steck and Elliott Case (2026 Summer Law Clerk, rising 2L at Emory University School of Law)
On June 30, 2026, in a 6–3 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are present unlawfully or temporarily are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are therefore citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.
On June 30, 2026, in a 6–3 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are present unlawfully or temporarily are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are therefore citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Roberts traced the citizenship rule back to English common law and to the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption after the Civil War, concluding that the Amendment was meant to permanently guarantee birthright citizenship for nearly everyone born on American soil, with narrow historical exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats and, at the time, members of sovereign Indian tribes.
The majority also relied heavily on the Court's 1898 precedent, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which the opinion described as having already settled that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the common-law birthright rule for children of foreign parents, including those merely visiting or residing temporarily in the country. The Court rejected the government's central argument that only children whose parents were "domiciled" in the U.S., rather than merely present, owed the kind of allegiance needed for citizenship, finding little historical support for that domicile-based theory and concluding that the text of the Citizenship Clause itself contains no such limitation.
This decision leaves a longstanding understanding of birthright citizenship in place. With limited exceptions, anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Please contact Garrett Steck for questions on this topic or other immigration matters.
The majority also relied heavily on the Court's 1898 precedent, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which the opinion described as having already settled that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the common-law birthright rule for children of foreign parents, including those merely visiting or residing temporarily in the country. The Court rejected the government's central argument that only children whose parents were "domiciled" in the U.S., rather than merely present, owed the kind of allegiance needed for citizenship, finding little historical support for that domicile-based theory and concluding that the text of the Citizenship Clause itself contains no such limitation.
This decision leaves a longstanding understanding of birthright citizenship in place. With limited exceptions, anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Please contact Garrett Steck for questions on this topic or other immigration matters.
