US Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship in Major Ruling

The United States Supreme Court has issued a major ruling that protects the right to citizenship for babies born in the country. In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected an attempt by President Donald Trump to end a policy that has existed for 150 years. This ruling confirms that children born in the United States are citizens at birth, even if their parents are in the country illegally or are visiting with temporary visas.

President Trump had issued an executive order on his first day of his second term to stop this practice. An executive order is an official instruction from the president that does not need approval from Congress. Trump’s order sought to deny citizenship to babies whose parents were not US citizens or permanent residents, often called green card holders. However, the Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday effectively stops this policy from ever taking effect.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion for the court. He explained that the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution was created to ensure that all people born in the country are treated as citizens. According to BBC News, Roberts stated that citizenship is the "right to have rights" and that the court was keeping a promise made to every person born on American land. The court’s decision relies on the 14th Amendment, which says that all people born or naturalized in the United States are citizens.

This ruling is a significant moment in American law. As NPR News reports, the court looked back at history to make its decision. The justices cited the 1898 case of Wong Kim Ark, which involved a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents. The court ruled then that he was a citizen, even though his parents were not. This case has served as a key legal precedent—an earlier court decision that guides how judges should rule in similar future cases—for more than a century.

Not all justices agreed with the majority. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a long dissent, which is a formal statement of disagreement with the court’s final decision. According to NPR News, Thomas argued that the 14th Amendment was only meant to apply to former slaves and their families after the Civil War, not to everyone born in the country. He suggested that the majority’s interpretation might not be viewed the same way in the future. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson responded to this view, noting that the amendment was meant to provide broad protections.

For the Trump administration, the ruling is a major setback. The government’s lawyer, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, had argued that birthright citizenship was unfair to those who follow legal immigration paths. He claimed that the policy "rewards illegal aliens" who break immigration laws. However, lower courts had already blocked the order, with some judges describing it as clearly unconstitutional, or against the rules of the Constitution, as noted by NPR News.

Most countries outside of the Americas follow a different system called "right of blood," where a child’s citizenship is based on the citizenship of their parents. In contrast, the United States follows "right of soil," where citizenship is based on the place of birth. This tradition comes from old English common law. As DW reports, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised the decision, stating that it is a clear message about the country's identity: "No matter who your parents are, if you're born here, you belong here."

This decision comes just one day after the Supreme Court ruled to increase the president's power over independent government agencies. While the court has recently supported the president in other areas, this ruling shows that the justices will still act to protect established constitutional rights when they believe the law requires it. For now, the status of birthright citizenship remains unchanged, and the government must continue to recognize the citizenship of all children born on US territory.