Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, striking down Trump’s EO
OAN Staff Katherine Mosack
9:01 AM – Tuesday, June 30, 2026
The United States Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship regardless of one’s parentage, ruling against President Donald Trump’s executive order (EO) restricting the recognition of citizenship for individuals whose parents are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
“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,” the ruling on Tuesday said.
The case, Trump v. Barbara, focused on an order Trump signed on his first day back in office last January, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”
The EO affirms that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants the privilege of citizenship to individuals born or naturalized in the U.S., but contends that it may not be interpreted to grant citizenship universally to all persons born on U.S. soil.
Consequentially, the order stipulates that citizenship would not be afforded to individuals born under the following conditions:
- A person’s mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. at the time of birth and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
- A person’s mother was lawfully temporarily present under a visa and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
These policies would apply to persons born after 30 days from the date of the order’s issuance — meaning February 19, 2025.
However, the court held 5-4 that children born to parents who are unlawful or temporary residents can still be considered citizens.
BREAKING: Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship for children born in the United States even if their parents are here illegally
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 30, 2026
Justices Roberts and Barrett joined the three liberal justices. pic.twitter.com/6QbP1MHQg2
The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Roberts’ opinion relied heavily on the English common law of “jus soli,” Latin for “right of the soil,” which allows automatic citizenship to anyone born within a country’s territory.
The majority explained that before the American Revolution, colonists were considered subjects of the sovereign due to their birthplace within the king’s dominion. This idea “prevailed” after the Revolution and was later constitutionalized in the Fourteenth Amendment, according to the court.
“In a Nation of immigrants—an “asylum for mankind,” in Thomas Paine’s words—jus soli’s broad scope took on particular importance,” Roberts wrote, referencing Paine’s famous 1776 work, “Common Sense.”
The ruling deals a blow to the Trump administration’s agenda. In a first for a sitting president, Trump attended the oral arguments for this case, demonstrating its significance to him.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh voted against the ruling.
Kavanaugh generally agreed with the ruling, but dissented in part against the broad scope of the majority opinion’s reasoning.
Thomas’s dissent argued that the majority misread the Citizenship Clause.
“Both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race,” wrote Thomas. “Neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States.”
Though both the executive order and the majority agreed with the dissent that the Dred Scott v. Sanford ruling was erroneous in its restriction of citizenship based on race, as well as the 14th Amendment’s adoption to overturn the court’s ruling in this case, Thomas emphasized crucial context in the Dred Scott decision.
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority,” Thomas held, adding, “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors were attached to their home country, lacked similar bonds to this country, and would not be called upon in time of war.”
He later continued, “The Civil Rights Act guaranteed citizenship to persons who were both ‘born in the United States’ and, as relevant here, ‘not subject to any foreign power.’”
Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
What do YOU think? Click here to jump to the comments!
Sponsored Content Below
Share this post!
Badenoch blasts 'moaning' female Labour MPs over Burnham jobs 'quota'
Kemi Badenoch has told Labour women to earn a job in Andy Burnham's Cabinet instead of demanding they are handed jobs because of their gender.
The Tory leader lashed out today amid reports that female MPs are demanding the de-facto new prime minister introduce a 50:50 gender split 'quota' in his government.
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister also complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts.
But in a scathing article in the Times today Mrs Badenoch told them to 'stop moaning' and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'.
'There are many, many reasons why you shouldn't have any Milibands in the cabinet,' she said.
'But complaining that the boys haven't given them the right jobs or that the boys are taking all the jobs, just shows that Labour's women still don't get it.'
The idea of quotas was also attacked by Baroness Jacqui Smith, Labour's Skills Minister.
Asked by Times Radio if Mr Burnham should reserve jobs for women, she said: 'No, I think what Andy Burnham should be doing is building the very best team around him to change this country.'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband (above, right, in 2010) is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts
But Mrs Badenoch told them to pipe down and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party and seen by the BBC has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs after he succeeds Sir Keir Starmer.
'We are asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity and misogyny within our own party and government,' it said.
Labour has never had a female leader, while the Conservatives have had three, and Mrs Badenoch urged the government to follow its meritocratic example.
'If you run a meritocracy, then you do not have to worry about jobs for the boys,' she wrote.
'Every woman who is a Conservative MP, every woman who has ever won the leadership, has had to fight to get where she is.
'By contrast, Labour women are demanding guarantees from Burnham. But the truth is he doesn't have to give any guarantees.
'If none of Labour's women are prepared to get their hands dirty and challenge him for the leadership, their demands are toothless.'
'In fact, it's quite revealing that the women's parliamentary Labour Party has written to Burnham asking him to commit himself to at least 50 per cent female ministers.
'This has nothing to do with meritocracy. It is yet more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country.'
