The U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, delivering a major defeat to his administration's immigration agenda.

 

MAJOR Trump LOSS as Supreme Court REJECTS his bid to end birthright citizenship

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, delivering a major defeat to his administration's immigration agenda. In a 6-3 decision issued on June 30, 2026, the high court upheld the 150-year-old precedent that guarantees automatic citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil.

Key Details of the Ruling

• The Vote Breakdown: The conservative-majority court split 6-3. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion. Five justices ruled that the order violated the 14th Amendment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred with the outcome but argued the policy violated federal statutory law rather than the Constitution.
• The Dissent: Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito dissented from the majority.
• The Blocked Policy: Trump signed the executive order on January 20, 2025, his first day in office. It directed federal agencies to deny automatic citizenship to babies born in the U.S. unless at least one parent was a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident. [1, 2, 3]
• The Impact: According to research from the Migration Policy Institute cited by PBS NewsHour, the order would have stripped citizenship from roughly 250,000 babies born each year.

Constitutional Context

Chief Justice Roberts wrote that children born to parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the U.S. are still "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States under the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. The ruling heavily reinforced the landmark 1898 Wong Kim Ark precedent, which originally cemented birthright citizenship for children of foreign nationals.

Trump's Response

Trump, who made history by attending the oral arguments in person in April 2026, reacted on Truth Social by calling the ruling "too bad for our country". He claimed that a constitutional amendment is not necessary and urged Congress to pass a federal statute to end the practice. However, legal scholars note that changing this standard would realistically require a two-thirds majority in Congress to amend the Constitution, making legislative paths highly unlikely