The U.S. Supreme Court has once again delivered a blow to President Trump, striking down his controversial executive order on birthright citizenship.
In a key ruling on June 30, the nation’s highest court rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to limit automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, according to reports.
Following the decision, House Speaker Johnson, a Republican, expressed deep disappointment, calling it a narrow, text-bound interpretation of the law and arguing that the system has been severely abused.
Just a day earlier, the Supreme Court also blocked Trump from firing Federal Reserve board member Cook, firmly upholding the central bank’s independence.
The contested executive order, which took effect on January 20 of last year—Trump’s first day back in office—sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent was a citizen or a green card holder.
Specifically, it targeted two groups: children whose mothers were in the U.S. illegally and fathers were not citizens or permanent residents, and those whose mothers were legally but temporarily in the country, with fathers lacking citizenship or permanent residency.
Both the Ninth and First Circuit Courts of Appeals had already ruled that the order violated the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which states that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens.
This clause, known as “birthright citizenship,” has been a bedrock principle since 1868. Trump and his supporters argue that the outdated policy fuels “birth tourism,” where people travel to the U.S. solely to give birth, and needs reform.
The 14th Amendment was passed by the states after the Civil War. Its reference to “jurisdiction” covers territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, but notably excludes children of foreign diplomats. The landmark 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark further cemented birthright citizenship.
Since the 1990s, as illegal immigration surged, conservative voices have worried that citizens of hostile nations might exploit birthright citizenship to undermine U.S. sovereignty and national security.
Mark Krikorian, head of the anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies, argued that the amendment’s original intent was to prevent Southern states from stripping freed slaves of their citizenship after federal troops withdrew. He noted that the framers couldn’t have foreseen a world where people from all over would rush to have babies in America.
In 2014, around 275,000 newborns of undocumented immigrants gained citizenship. By 2016, over 4 million children born in the U.S. had at least one parent without formal citizenship.
Back in 2015, federal authorities cracked down on birth tourism, raiding over a dozen homes in Southern California. Among those charged was a couple running a maternity hostel. The woman, who operated “You Win USA,” pleaded guilty and got 10 months in prison, while the other operator reportedly fled the country.
During his first term, Trump repeatedly threatened to end birthright citizenship via executive order to stop birth tourism, but never followed through until just before leaving office in early 2021. In August 2019, his administration tweaked rules so that children of U.S. government employees or military personnel born abroad wouldn’t automatically get citizenship—but the impact was minimal. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services estimated it would affect at most 25 people a year.
Under Biden, the U.S. saw a historic immigration surge, with 2.4 million people entering annually. So, during his 2023 campaign, Trump unveiled more details of his plan: requiring at least one parent to be a citizen or legal permanent resident for a child to get automatic citizenship, and denying passports, Social Security, and other taxpayer-funded benefits to children of those here illegally.
When Trump returned to the White House last January, a woman named Phoebe Dong from Rancho Cucamonga, California, was sentenced to 41 months in prison. She and her husband, Michael Liu, ran a maternity hostel called “USA Happy Baby,” helping over 100 pregnant women travel to the U.S. to give birth for automatic citizenship. The business was convicted of fraud and money laundering last September.
The final word on the Constitution rests with the Supreme Court. After Trump’s first term, conservative justices now hold a 6-3 majority.
One potential loophole for the Trump team lies in the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Conservatives are exploring new interpretations, with some Trump officials previously proposing that children of illegal immigrants aren’t “subject to” U.S. jurisdiction and thus not protected by the clause. But that idea raises more questions.
Analysts say the legal basis for reinterpreting “jurisdiction” is weak. It could also undermine criminal law’s applicability to undocumented immigrants and others, giving criminals a handy defense: “I’m not subject to U.S. law.”
Executive orders that bypass Congress are also controversial. Trump has said in interviews he doesn’t want to break up immigrant families, hinting at further action. Sources familiar with his team’s thinking suggest possible moves include tightening tourist visa requirements and stopping the issuance of passports to children of illegal immigrants.
