The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of birthright citizenship on the final day of its term, rejecting President Trump's effort to end the practice through an executive order. The decision means that, as has long been the case, a person born in the United States is recognized as a citizen of the country.
The case centered on the executive order Trump signed on the first day of his second term, which sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who entered the country illegally. The order had been put on hold by lower courts, and the justices were asked to decide whether it could stand against the established reading of the Constitution.
At the heart of the dispute was the 14th Amendment, which has for generations been interpreted to guarantee citizenship to those born on American soil. During oral arguments earlier in the year, which Trump attended in person, becoming the first sitting president to do so, several justices appeared skeptical of the administration's position and of the argument that citizenship amounted to a privilege that had been abused.
By siding with birthright citizenship, the court left the current framework intact, avoiding what legal observers had described as a potentially dramatic shift in how the law would be administered across the country. The outcome was closely watched by tens of thousands of immigrant parents who had feared their children could be left without a clear citizenship status.
Reaction in Washington was swift. House Speaker Mike Johnson said he would read the ruling that upholds birthright citizenship before commenting in detail, while Democratic lawmakers welcomed the outcome. Congressman Ted Lieu said he was relieved and very happy that the court had ruled in favor of birthright citizenship, framing it as part of what he called the country's ability to evolve and remain open.
The birthright decision was among the last issued as the justices closed out the term ahead of the Fourth of July holiday. The court had a small number of high-profile cases still outstanding in its final stretch, including disputes over state laws on transgender athletes in school sports and a challenge involving campaign finance limits, keeping attention fixed on the bench through its closing days.
For now, the ruling settles one of the most contentious questions of the term and reaffirms a principle that has shaped American citizenship for well over a century. Supporters cast it as a defense of constitutional continuity, even as the broader political debate over immigration and executive power is certain to continue.