The US Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 30) ruled that the Trump administration’s executive order outlawing birthright citizenship was unconstitutional. It reaffirmed that children born in the US are American citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment, regardless of whether their parents are in the country unlawfully or only temporarily.
In a 6-3 decision, the court rejected the administration’s argument that such children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US, holding that the executive order inconsistent with the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause and longstanding Supreme Court precedent.
The ruling marks one of the biggest judicial setbacks to the US President’s second-term immigration agenda, and reaffirms a constitutional guarantee that has stood for over 150 years. Here is what to know.
What is birthright citizenship?
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The amendment, ratified in 1868 after the American Civil War, was intended to ensure that formerly enslaved people would be recognised as US citizens.
Courts have long interpreted the provision to confer citizenship on nearly everyone born on American soil, with two longstanding exceptions:
- The children of diplomats who have allegiance to another government.
- Enemies present in the US during hostile occupation.
Birthright citizenship supporters gather in front of the Supreme Court after the decision on birthright citizenship in Washington, on Tuesday, June 30, 2026. (The New York Times)
The principle of birthright citizenship predates the US Constitution and draws on the English common law doctrine of jus soli, or “right of soil”, under which citizenship is determined by place of birth rather than parentage.
Story continues below this ad
In its June 30 ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly everyone born on US soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Why does Trump want to end birthright citizenship?
Hours after beginning his second term, Trump signed an executive order denying citizenship to children born in the US to parents who were in the country illegally or temporarily. The order argued that such children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are therefore not entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
In his first post-election interview in December 2024, Trump said, “We have to end it. We’re the only country that has it.”
That claim is inaccurate. At least 37 other countries grant citizenship to anyone born on their soil, mostly in South America and the Caribbean. India does not practice unconditional birthright citizenship, nor do several European countries.
Story continues below this ad
Following the ruling, Trump called the decision “too bad for our country” and said his administration would continue pursuing efforts to restrict birthright citizenship. He also falsely claimed Congress could reverse the decision through legislation.
Is birthright citizenship practised in India?
The issue of birthright citizenship was one of the main challenges before the framers of the Indian Constitution, to decide whether citizenship should be based on birth or descent. Some members of the Constituent Assembly, such as P S Deshmukh (Indian National Congress Member from Maharashtra), argued against birthright citizenship, stating that it would make “Indian citizenship the cheapest on earth.”
However, other members, such as BR Ambedkar and Sardar Vallabhai Patel, favoured birthright citizenship, and it was ultimately recognised in the Constitution. Article 5 of the Constitution states that every person who was born in the territory before the commencement of the Constitution shall be a citizen of India.
Parliament subsequently enacted the Citizenship Act, 1955, which provided birthright citizenship under Section 3 to every person born in India on or after January 26, 1950. There was an exception only for children born to “an envoy of a foreign sovereign power” who is not a citizen, and children of an “enemy alien” when the birth takes place in an area under enemy occupation.
Story continues below this ad
However, in 1986, Parliament amended the Act to address the entry of migrants from “Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and some African Countries”. Children born after the Amendment came into force would only become citizens if either of their parents was an Indian citizen, marking the end of birthright citizenship in India.
In 2003, the Act was amended again to effectively state that a child would not become a citizen at birth if one of her parents was an illegal immigrant when she was born.