Supreme Court preserves birthright citizenship, blocking Trump order
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 30 that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he signed an executive order to deny citizenship to children born in the country to parents who lack legal immigration status.
Trump signed the order on his first day in office, prompting immediate legal challenges based on the 14th Amendment, which guarantees automatic citizenship to anyone born in the country and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The U.S. bishops opposed Trump’s directive, saying the “immoral” order would harm families, destabilize communities, and undermine human dignity.
The executive order was blocked by courts before it went into effect, so children born to parents who lack legal immigration status were not being denied citizenship. The Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Barbara maintains the legal framework that existed before Trump’s executive order, essentially voiding the president’s actions.
A 6–3 majority on the court found that Trump’s executive order was unlawful. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who sided with the majority, dissented in part. He agreed Trump exceeded his authority but disagreed with the Constitutional claims.
With five justices agreeing on the constitutional claims, the decision solidifies that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment protects citizenship for those children, closing the door to the president or Congress taking that right away.
Anna Gallagher, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), praised the ruling in a statement provided to EWTN News.
“We are relieved and grateful that the Supreme Court has upheld this right that is so important for our identity as a nation and for safeguarding justice and human dignity,” she said.
“In our amicus brief, we explained how the values of Catholic social teaching, the particular realities of undocumented immigration in the United States, and our nation’s legal history make upholding the tradition of birthright citizenship the most just outcome of this case,” she added. “We are glad to receive a decision that will bring relief to immigrant families and our network. This is a win for immigrants, and a win for justice.”
Reaffirming precedent
The administration’s legal team had argued that birthright citizenship only applied to people who were legally in the country and “domiciled” with the intent to remain. The executive order was part of Trump’s broader immigration crackdown, which includes mass deportations of people in the country unlawfully and extends beyond people accused of violent crimes.
The court rejected this, stating that children born to parents who lack legal immigration status are indeed “amenable to the jurisdiction of the country” and therefore their U.S.-born children are citizens under the 14th Amendment.
The ruling reaffirmed the 1898 precedent set in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which found there to be only a small number of limited exceptions to birthright citizenship: those born to foreign diplomats and occupying enemy forces.
Wong Kim Ark also rejected birthright citizenship for certain Indigenous Americans, although this exception became irrelevant after every Indigenous American was granted citizenship with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
“What the court held in Wong Kim Ark was simple: The Citizenship Clause incorporated the common law and granted citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States,” the opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts stated.
“Not surprisingly, then, in the 128 years since, we have repeatedly understood the rule of Wong Kim Ark to guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its power,” it said.
The court found that the administration’s view — that birthright citizenship applied only to children whose parents were “domiciled” — was based on “scant evidence” and called the position a “dramatically revisionist view” of the 14th Amendment.
“The question is whether a person is ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the government of the country in which he is physically present, even if he is only there temporarily,” the opinion added. “He is (unless he falls under one of the familiar exceptions, such as for ambassadors).”
Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting, argued that the administration’s position — that birthright citizenship applies only to the children of people who are “domiciled” — is consistent with the nation’s historical interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
“The Citizenship Clause was enacted for people who were born in this country and called it home,” he wrote in his dissent. “It was enacted for freed slaves such as Dred Scott, who had ‘a domicil’ here and therefore were entitled to sue as citizens.”
Visa applicants to face pregnancy question?
Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies and a former immigration judge, told EWTN News Nightly that the court essentially found the president’s executive order improper “because constitutional amendments can only be changed by constitutional amendments.”
He said the ruling could lead the State Department to crack down on “birth tourism,” which he called “the main weaponization” of birthright citizenship — when women travel to the United States solely to give birth so their children gain U.S. citizenship.
“I think one of the things we’re going to see is that the State Department is going to be cracking down on nonimmigrant visas, temporary visas for people coming to the United States,” Arthur said. “And there will probably be an additional question on the questionnaire: ‘Are you pregnant or do you plan on becoming pregnant?’ I think we’ll also see those restrictions carry over to the ports of entry.”
In February, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops petitioned the Supreme Court to protect birthright citizenship, urging the court to preserve long‑standing constitutional interpretation to protect human dignity and social cohesion.
“At its core, this case is not solely a question about citizenship status or the 14th Amendment,” the court filing read. “It is a question of whether the law will affirm or deny the equal worth of those born within our common community — whether the law will protect the human dignity of all God’s children.”
This story was updated at 11:40 a.m. ET on June 30, 2026 to include comments from Anna Gallagher, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC); at 12:50 p.m. ET on June 30, 2026 to include quotations from the opinion; and further updated at 3 p.m. ET on June 30, 2026 to include comments from Andrew Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Saint of the Day – rosary.team
