US Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship in setback for Trump

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday, June 30, 2026, upheld the constitutional right to birthright citizenship in a closely watched ruling, striking down an executive order issued by President Donald Trump. In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected Trump's attempt to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are neither citizens nor legal permanent residents.

The executive order, signed early in Trump's term, sought to overturn the long-standing principle that virtually anyone born on US soil automatically receives citizenship. That principle is rooted in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, adopted after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their descendants. The majority of justices found that this right is clearly enshrined in the Constitution and cannot be overridden by presidential order.

The ruling is widely regarded as one of the most significant setbacks to Trump's immigration agenda. The president had positioned the restriction of birthright citizenship as a central element of his broader push to tighten immigration policy, repeatedly describing the existing practice as costly and unfair. Following the decision, Trump publicly criticized the ruling, calling it bad for the country. He also suggested that Congress could now pursue legislation to address the issue through other means.

The decision revealed sharp disagreements within the court. Justice Clarence Thomas, one of three dissenting justices, argued in his dissent that the ruling in some sense devalues citizenship for other Americans. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson strongly rejected this position, characterizing Thomas's interpretation of the 14th Amendment as overly narrow. The exchange between the two justices highlighted the deep ideological divisions within the court on questions of constitutional interpretation.

The birthright citizenship ruling was one of three major decisions the Supreme Court issued the same day, marking the conclusion of its nine-month term. In a separate case, the court also voted 6-3 to strike down limits on coordinated campaign spending between political parties and individual candidates, citing First Amendment free speech protections. That decision could have significant implications for the financing of the upcoming November midterm elections.

In a third case, the court unanimously upheld, by a 9-0 vote, state laws barring transgender female students from competing on girls' sports teams. The justices ruled that such laws do not violate Title IX, the federal statute prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education.

Reactions to the rulings fell sharply along political lines. Democratic lawmakers and civil rights organizations celebrated the birthright citizenship decision as one of the most significant modern affirmations of constitutional rights, emphasizing the historical importance of the 14th Amendment to America's immigration story. Republican officials and immigration hardliners expressed disappointment, criticizing the ruling as an obstacle to necessary immigration reform.

It remains unclear how the Trump administration will proceed. The president himself pointed to the possibility of a legislative solution through Congress, though this is considered difficult given current political dynamics in Washington. Observers expect that both the birthright citizenship issue and the campaign finance ruling will play significant roles in the political discourse ahead of the November midterm elections.