Newsom calls Supreme Court birthright ruling 'win for American democracy'
The Supreme Court on June 30 rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to redefine who is an American, striking down the limits on birthright citizenship, a move California politicians are touting as a "win for American democracy."
The ruling landed as the nation is gearing up to celebrate its 250th anniversary, adding to the significance of a case that was already a blockbuster.
"Today is a win for American democracy," California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a post on X. "This SCOTUS decision preserves a promise that has defined America for generations: Birthright citizenship is a constitutional guarantee, plain and simple. The Constitution prevailed. We have all prevailed."
California Rep. Nancy Pelosi echoed the sentiment, quoting the Citizenship Clause of the Constitution shortly after the decision was announced.
“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," Pelosi said on X.
Attorney General Rob Bonta, one of 22 attorney generals that sued Trump over the order, said the Supreme Court ruling "affirmed this foundational constitutional right."
"Every child born in this country, no matter their background, is equal under the law and can pursue their American Dream," Bonta wrote in a post on X.
And it came months after the court killed Trump’s signature tariffs, another repudiation of the expansive authority Trump has claimed since returning to the White House last year.
But in other immigration cases, including last week’s ruling allowing Trump to end deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants, the justices backed the president’s authority.
In their latest decision, however, the justices said Trump cannot change the definition of birthright citizenship with the stroke of a pen. Trump's push to make that change upended how the constitutional guarantee – long considered a bedrock American principle — had historically been understood.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion. Three of the court's other conservatives dissented.
Trump's inauguration day birthright citizenship order was blocked immediately
On his first day back in office, Trump directed federal agencies not to recognize the citizenship of babies born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident – also known as a "green card" holder.
Trump’s order was immediately challenged through multiple lawsuits filed by expectant parents, immigrant rights groups and 22 state attorneys general, among which was California.
Newsom called the executive order "unconstitutional" in a January 2025 statement.
The Supreme Court took up Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order last year, but only to decide whether lower courts had gone too far in blocking its implementation while the order was being litigated. In that 6-3 decision, the court rejected the way judges had put Trump’s order on ice but left open another path.
And a federal judge in New Hampshire soon blocked the citizenship order again, ruling it likely violated the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and a federal law that codified those rights.
Trump campaigned on limiting birthright citizenship
Trump, who campaigned on restricting birthright citizenship and attended the April oral arguments in a first for a sitting president, argued that the citizenship clause has been misinterpreted. He said it should not apply to children born to parents who aren’t citizens or permanent residents, because they may feel loyal to a foreign country even if they have to follow U.S. laws while they’re here.
“No Country can be successful with such an anchor wrapped firmly around its neck," Trump wrote on social media in April.
The president also argued a landmark 1898 Supreme Court decision about the 14th Amendment applied to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States" − an interpretation that “protects the meaning and value” of American citizenship.
'Foundational to who we are as a nation'
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the immigrants who challenged the executive order, called birthright citizenship “foundational to who we are as a nation.”
"Ask any American what our citizenship rule is and they'll tell you, everyone born here is a citizen alike," Cecillia Wang, the ACLU's national legal director, told the justices in her oral argument. “The 14th Amendment's fixed bright-line rule has contributed to the growth and thriving of our nation."
Wang herself is a citizen due to that constitutional guarantee because her Taiwanese parents were in the United States on student visas when she was born.
Under Trump's policy, roughly 255,000 children born on U.S. soil each year would start life without U.S. citizenship, according to the Migration Policy Institute. That’s about 6% of all projected births.
Expectant mothers challenged Trump's order
The parents representing their children in the lawsuit, Trump v. Barbara, include a woman from Honduras who has lived in the United States since 2024 and gave birth months after Trump signed his executive order.
Identified by the pseudonym “Barbara,” the woman said in court filings that she’s seeking asylum from gang activity in Honduras, and her family has become part of the local community in New Hampshire.
Another mother who challenged the order came to the United States from Taiwan in 2013 on a student visa and is applying for a work visa. She and her husband have four children, three born in the United States before Trump’s executive order and one born after.
“My husband and I ended up building a life here,” the woman, known as “Susan,” said in a court filing. “My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States.”
During the oral arguments, conservative justices addressed – but dismissed – policy arguments Trump made for limiting birthright citizenship. Those included the president’s claim that “birth tourism” – the practice of pregnant women coming to the United States to give birth so their babies will be citizens – is a major threat to national security and an incentive for illegal immigration.
When Solicitor General John Sauer told the justices that’s the “new world” to which the citizenship clause applies, Chief Justice John Roberts responded that such concerns “have no impact on the legal analysis before us.”
“It's a new world,” Roberts said. “It's the same Constitution.”
What is birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship is the right to citizenship in a country upon your birth. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states that “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."
A person who wasn’t born an American citizen can apply to become one through naturalization, depending on if they meet specific criteria such as being a permanent resident.
Which countries have birthright citizenship?
More than 30 other countries provide citizenship to those born there, according to Al Jazeera and the nonpartisan fact-checking website PolitiFact. This includes countries in Central and South America, such as Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Argentina, as well as America’s northern neighbor, Canada, according to Al Jazeera.
How has the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the 14th Amendment in the past?
An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark is considered the historical standard that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents, was denied re-entry to the United States after a trip to China, despite being born within U.S. territory. In a 6-2 decision, the court held that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen because of his birth in the United States, regardless of his parents' Chinese citizenship.
Trump's Justice Department has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States."
How many people gain citizenship through birthright?
According to estimates from the Migration Policy Institute and Penn State’s Population Research Institute, ending birthright citizenship would result in an average of 255,000 children being born in the U.S. without citizenship each year, and would increase the amount of unauthorized migrants living in the U.S. by 2.7 million by 2045, and 5.4 million by 2075. The Pew Research Center found in 2022 that about 4.4 million U.S.-born children under 18 live with an unauthorized immigrant parent.
How many foreign-born people live in California?
In 2022, more than 26% of people in California were foreign-born. Foreign-born populations also made up more than 20% of New Jersey, New York, and Florida's total population, according to the Census Bureau.
Foreign-born residents are anyone born outside of the U.S., including naturalized U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, temporary migrants, such as international students, humanitarian migrants, such as refugees or asylees, and unauthorized migrants.