Birthright citizenship upheld on major day of Supreme Court decisions
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled that all children born in the United States are citizens, upholding what has been one of the country’s bedrock principles for more than 125 years and handing President Donald Trump a loss on one of his top priorities.
Trump signed an executive order the first day of his second term to limit citizenship to children born to citizens or legal permanent residents, rather than tourists or undocumented immigrants. But the high court has interpreted the Constitution’s 14th Amendment – ratified in 1868 and upheld in a ruling in 1898 – as granting citizenship to all babies born in the country, regardless of parentage.
In another decision Tuesday, the court ruled 6-3 to allow states – West Virginia and Idaho – to ban transgender athletes from participating in female sports teams. Trump has been a vocal opponent of transgender athletes.
The conservative majority also sided with Vice President JD Vance and Republicans in striking down a law limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with an election candidate.
Trump urges Congress to legislate restrictions on birthright citizenship
Bart Jansen
Trump said the court upholding birthright citizenship is “too bad,” but said Congress could pass legislation to adopt his proposed restrictions on temporary or unlawful visitors having children.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that the Constitution would not stand in the way if Congress sought to restrict birthright citizenship though legislation. He was part of a 6-3 majority that overturned Trump's executive order restricting citizenship but not part of the 5-4 majority that said the 14th Amendment ensured citizenship for everyone born in the country.
“No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary!” Trump wrote on social media. “Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!”
'Serious mistake': What did dissenters say on birthright citizenship?
Aysha Bagchi
"I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time," Justice Clarence Thomas, who was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote in one dissent from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling.
"This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in another.
The three full dissenters from the court's ruling all believed the decision was historic, and historically wrong. But what specifically was their issue?
The birthright citizenship provision in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, states: "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."
For Thomas and Gorsuch, this amendment "was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks" following the end of slavery. By striking down Trump's order, the majority had "repurposed" the amendment for a different political project – providing automatic citizenship to "foreign birth tourists" and people who aren't authorized to be in the country, Thomas wrote, with Gorsuch signing on.
Alito, in his separate dissent, wrote that the amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language is best interpreted as referring to people who owe "complete allegiance" to the U.S., which he said would exclude the people Trump had excluded in his order.
Alito also focused on what he called "grotesque results" from the ruling: "While foreigners who wish to immigrate lawfully must sometimes wait for many years, a child born here to a birth tourist is automatically a citizen."
Descendent of man in key 1898 case reacts to birthright ruling
Trevor Hughes
In a statement, the great-grandson of Wong Ark Kim said he was proud his ancestor's win in a landmark 1898 court case about birthright citizenship was reaffirmed.
"He was one man, only a cook, and yet he stood up for what was right, and I believe that it has made a difference. As a result, he stood up for the rights of all of us Americans – it just so happens that I am related to him," Norman Wong said in a statement.
The advocacy group Stop AAPI Hate said that while it welcomed the decision, members worry what the Trump administration will try next. The group advocates for civil rights protections for Asian American and Pacific Islander communities.
"Because of this birthright citizenship, communities of color have been able to grow in size and political power – and that is precisely why the Trump administration attempted to end it," the group said. "So while we celebrate today’s ruling, we must also recognize that their attack on birthright citizenship is just one part of their broader plan to make America permanently hostile to people of color. "
Relief and a 'looming cloud' after birthright decision
Trevor Hughes
Among those celebrating the birthright citizenship decision is Denver-area resident Ana Temu Otting, 34, who was born in Los Angeles to parents who lacked legal immigration status at the time of her birth. But she said her happiness at the outcome is tempered by the belief Trump won't just give up.
Temu Otting said she was worried what a decision favoring Trump would have meant for her own 5-year-old son: How far back in history might authorities go to revoke birthright citizenship for past generations?
"It is a relief, but there is still a big looming cloud of uncertainty because this administration and time of deep racism is still not over," Temu Otting said.
Some anti-immigration hardliners, including former Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino, are pushing Trump to restart mass detention and deportation operations.
Lawyer for trans athletes calls ruling 'heartbreaking'
Maureen Groppe
A lawyer representing the transgender athletes who challenged West Virginia and Idaho’s bans called the court’s ruling “heartbreaking.”
“The reality is that the equality of transgender women and girls takes nothing away from, and in fact promotes, the equality of all women and girls,” said Joshua Block, an attorney with the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Rights Project. “We will continue to advance the fundamental principle that all young people deserve equal opportunity to thrive and succeed.”
Sasha Buchert, an attorney with Lambda Legal, said the ruling “is deeply harmful for transgender women and girls who only asked for the ability to participate in sports with their peers.”
West Virginia, Idaho attorneys general calls trans athlete decision a 'landmark victory'
Maureen Groppe
Officials in West Virginia and Idaho praised the court's ruling upholding their state bans on transgender women and girls competing on female sports teams.
West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey called the decision a “monumental victory for every female athlete who has ever competed, or dreamed of competing, on a fair and safe playing field.”
“This landmark victory will give all states, not just West Virginia, the clarity and confidence to ensure fairness and safety for female athletes today and for generations to come,” McCuskey said in a statement.
Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador said the court “has now confirmed that states can preserve fair competition and protect the opportunities that generations of women fought to secure.”
Senate Democrat who defended birthright citizenship relieved at ruling
Bart Jansen
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who led a group of 216 congressional Democrats to file a written argument with the court in favor of birthright citizenship, expressed relief at the decision.
“President Trump’s illegal birthright citizenship order was not just an attack on our Constitution – it was an attack on millions of Americans who have immigrant heritage,” Durbin said. “We are a nation of immigrants, and we must end this anti-immigrant campaign fueled by fear and hatred.”
Trump commends court ruling lifting cap on campaign funding
Bart Jansen
Trump called the court removing restrictions on political spending a victory for Republicans and free speech.
The court lifted a 50-year-old rule limiting how much parties could spend in coordination with candidates.
“The Supreme Court just took restrictions off political spending!” Trump said on social media. “A BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS and, more importantly, The First Amendment!”
Trump calls ruling against transgender athletes a 'BIG WIN'
Bart Jansen
Trump, who had long campaigned against transgender athletes competing in women's sports, called the court’s ruling upholding state-level bans on their participation a “BIG WIN.”
“Wow! That takes that ridiculous situation off the table!!!” Trump said on social media.
How did the birthright citizenship vote break down?
Aysha Bagchi
Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion ruling Trump's birthright citizenship order unconstitutional was joined by four other members of the court, including Trump appointee Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the court's three liberals – Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, wrote separately that he agreed the order was unlawful but was still partly dissenting from the majority opinion.
Kavanaugh said he would have ruled that Trump's order is compatible with the Constitution, but that it contravenes a federal statute. That would have meant, under Kavanaugh's reading, Congress has the power to pass a new law excluding the children Trump attempted to exclude from birthright citizenship, but that Trump couldn't do it himself.
Three of the court's conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented, saying Trump's order was fully lawful.
Supreme Court strikes down Trump order on birthright citizenship
Aysha Bagchi
The Supreme Court struck down a landmark policy of Trump's second term in office: redefining birthright citizenship.
On the first day of his return to the Oval Office, Trump ordered an end to the policy of granting automatic citizenship to children born in the United States whose parents aren't authorized to be in the country, or only have temporary authorization.
Several organizations and state officials sued, arguing that the order violates the Constitution's guarantee of citizenship to all people born in the U.S. "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
The Supreme Court agreed June 30 that Trump's order runs afoul of the Constitution, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the court's majority.
Supreme Court strikes down political party campaign spending limits
Aysha Bagchi
In a win for Republicans, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal law limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with an election candidate violates the First Amendment, which establishes the right to free speech.
The 6-3 decision broke down along ideological lines, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing for the majority. The decision is the latest in a string of cases in recent decades favoring free speech rights over attempts to limit money in politics.
Court allows states to ban transgender athletes from female teams
Bart Jansen
The Supreme Court ruled that states can bar transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams, in one of the major cultural flashpoints before the court this term.
The decision is another setback for the LGBTQ+ community from the high court, which has issued a series of recent rulings against transgender Americans.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for a 6-3 majority that the Title IX civil rights statute barring sex-based discrimination in education allows West Virginia and Idaho to provide separate teams based on sex. The court also ruled the state bans didn't violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution's 14th Amendment by maintaining sports teams for biological females.
No livestream available for decision announcements
Maureen Groppe
Don’t try tuning in to hear the justices announce today’s decisions.
Although the court livestreams the audio of oral arguments, that’s not the case for the summaries the justices give of their opinions.
The Senate Judiciary Committee this month advanced a bill that would require all open sessions of the court to be televised, unless a majority of the justices agree doing so would violate the due process rights of one the parties arguing before the court.
“It’s time to put cameras in the Supreme Court so more Americans can finally see arguments and decisions in cases that will affect them for generations to come,” Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the committee’s top Democrat, said in a statement.
But don’t get too excited just yet. Similar bills approved by the panel in previous years were never voted on by the full Senate.
Court has two ways of ruling against birthright citizenship
Maureen Groppe
President Trump's birthright citizenship order is widely viewed as a legal long shot, in part because the justices have more than one way to stop it.
They could rule that the order violates the 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantee to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The court could also rule against Trump more narrowly by finding that his executive order violates a 1952 immigration law.
That would leave open the possibility that the law could be changed.
Thomas, Alito have stuck with Trump
Maureen Groppe
On this term’s major cases about Trump’s expansive view of his executive power, two of the court’s six conservatives have never ruled against him and none of the court’s three liberals have ruled for him so far.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have sided with Trump in the decisions about his sweeping tariffs, ending deportation protections for immigrants, and firing leaders of independent agencies − including the Federal Reserve.
We’ll know today if that pattern holds for the court’s decision on Trump’s attempt to severely limit birthright citizenship.
Which justices are likely to write the final decisions?
Maureen Groppe
After authoring two of the decisions handed down yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts may have at least one more up his sleeve.
Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh have written the fewest decisions this term, so they’re the favorites to have the majority opinion in the remaining cases.
Decisions are announced from the bench by order of seniority of the author, with Roberts going last. So if the chief justice is writing the opinion about President Trump’s birthright citizenship order, that could be the final ruling of the term.
Lawyer who argued against Trump's birthright order benefited from 14th Amendment
Maureen Groppe
The ACLU lawyer who argued against President Trump’s birthright citizenship order in April is herself a citizen because of the 14 Amendment.
Cecillia Wang, the ACLU's national legal director, became an automatic citizen when she was born in the U.S. while her Taiwanese parents were in the country on student visas.
"Ask any American what our citizenship rule is and they'll tell you, everyone born here is a citizen alike," Wang said during the oral arguments.
What's next for the justices?
Maureen Groppe
What will the justices do after wrapping up today’s final opinions? They have one more private conference to decide whether to grant or reject pending appeals before scattering for the summer.
The court may also issue decisions about emergency appeals over the next three months.
But their summer break still gives them a break from each other – and time to take vacations or teach a class, sometimes far from DC.
Justice Neil Gorsuch taught a class in Prague for George Mason University last year, according to his most recent financial disclosure report, which was released Monday.
How many states restrict sports participation of transgender girls?
Maureen Groppe
Twenty-seven states bar transgender girls and women from joining female sports teams. Other states either prohibit such bans or have not taken a position.
Trump, who campaigned on the issue, has moved to cut off federal funding to schools that allow transgender females to participate in girls' and women's sports.
After Trump issued his executive order last year, the NCAA limited competition in women’s sports to athletes who were assigned female at birth. And the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee said it would comply with Trump’s order.
How many transgender athletes are there?
Maureen Groppe
Idaho and West Virginia − the two states whose bans are being challenged − describe the participation of transgender athletes in female sports as a significant problem, but advocates say the scope of the issue has been blown out of proportion.
There are no definitive statistics about how many students are affected by state bans.
In 2024, NCAA President Charlie Baker told a Senate panel he was aware of fewer than 10 transgender athletes competing in all college sports across U.S. campuses.
The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, a think tank that researches sexual orientation and gender identity issues, estimates that as many as 122,000 transgender youth could be participating in high school-level team athletics. At the college level, less than 1.5% of student athletes are probably transgender, according to the institute.
What are the trans athlete bans being challenged?
Maureen Groppe
Idaho’s law prohibits transgender women and girls from playing on female teams from primary school through college, including both intramural sports and competitive, elite teams.
West Virginia’s ban also applies at every level of competition, but only from middle school through college.
Neither law takes into account players' athletic ability or how far along they are in their transition.
Before the ban, transgender girls in West Virginia could compete on female teams unless the state athletic body determined theirparticipation was unsafe or unfair to other athletes.
How many people would be affected by Trump's birthright citizenship change?
Maureen Groppe
Under President 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.
The institute estimates that the share of the U.S. population without citizenship or legal status would be 40% larger in 2075 than it would be without the change.
Of the approximately 14 million people living in the United States without documentation, nearly 80% came from Mexico, Central and South America, according to the Aoki Center for Critical Race and Nation Studies at the University of California, Davis School of Law.
Another 5.5 million to 6.5 million people in the United States have temporary or provisional status, including those with pending asylum claims, undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children and people who entered through humanitarian programs. More than 90% came from Latin America, Asia, Africa and the Caribbean.
Trump says he'll accept loss on birthright, but it would be 'costly'
Bart Jansen
Trump said the Supreme Court should uphold his proposed restrictions on birthright citizenship but that he would accept the decision if the justices rule against him.
“It’s tremendously destructive, it’s extremely costly,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on June 29. “It’s up to them. But in terms for the good of the country, it would be great they didn’t allow it.”
Who challenged Trump's birthright citizenship policy?
Maureen Groppe
President Trump’s order was immediately challenged through multiple lawsuits filed by expectant parents, immigrant rights groups and 22 state attorneys general.
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.