close
Jump to content

Trump v. Barbara

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trump v. Barbara
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 1, 2026
Decided June 30, 2026
Full case nameDonald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. Barbara, et al.
Docket no.25-365
DecisionOpinion
Case history
Prior
  • Petitioners' Motion for Classwide Preliminary Injunction granted. Barbara v. Trump, No. 25-cv-00244 (D.N.H. July 10, 2025).
  • Notice of appeal filed. No. 25-1861 (1st Cir. September 5, 2025).
  • Cert. before judgment granted. 607 U.S. 1079 (2025).
Questions presented
Whether Executive Order No. 14,160 complies on its face with the Citizenship Clause and with 8 U.S.C. 1401(a), which codifies that Clause.
Holding
People born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, Jackson
ConcurrenceJackson, joined by Sotomayor (Introduction and Part I)
Concur/dissentKavanaugh
DissentThomas, joined by Gorsuch
DissentAlito
DissentGorsuch
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, cl. 1

Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. ___ (2026) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision[1][disputed – discuss] holding that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision settled the issue regarding the compliance of Executive Order 14160, which was signed in 2025 by President Donald Trump to end birthright citizenship for children of parents without U.S. citizenship or permanent residency, with the Citizenship Clause.

In a 6–3 decision issued on June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down the executive order, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson voting to invalidate it. The Court split 5–4 on the constitutional question, with Roberts writing that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to everyone born on U.S. soil, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson, while Kavanaugh concurred only on statutory grounds. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment was not inconsistent with the executive order.

Background

[edit]

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was enacted in 1868 following the American Civil War and emancipation of slaves, stating "[a]ll 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".[2] The Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that people of African descent, including descendants of enslaved people, could not be citizens of the United States. Part of Congress's goal in enacting the Fourteenth Amendment was to repudiate Dred Scott and constitutionalize birthright citizenship. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court held that a child born in the United States to noncitizen parents domiciled there was a citizen at birth, subject to narrow recognized exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats and members of tribal nations.[2]

As promised in his 2024 presidential campaign,[3] President Donald Trump's second administration cracked down on immigration,[4] partly by ordering federal executive departments not to recognize the U.S. citizenship of children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants or travel visa holders (Executive Order 14160, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship"):[5]

Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) when that person's mother's presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.

The government asserted that the executive order ended birthright citizenship and related benefits for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants, an issue that President Trump and his supporters viewed as critically important.[6] Legal commentators widely considered birthright citizenship settled law under longstanding precedent. The executive order aimed to test that understanding in court[7][8][9] and risked the birthright citizenship of about 250,000 U.S.-born children annually,[6] including some 150,000 annually whose parents were not legal permanent residents.[10]

In San Francisco, where the U.S.-born Wong Kim Ark had sued the government for recognition of his citizenship after being detained under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and where Chinese and Chinese Americans organized against the executive order, City Attorney David Chiu was concerned that the order "would create a permanent generation of folks who have never lived anywhere else but are considered undocumented". He stood with Wong's great-grandson, a cook, who criticized the executive order as divisive.[11]

Many district court judges quickly blocked the order by issuing universal injunctions, including Deborah Boardman, who said "no court in the country has ever endorsed the president's interpretation. This court will not be the first."[12] These cases were consolidated into Trump v. CASA (2025). The Trump administration asked the US Supreme Court to limit the injunctions to the plaintiffs who were suing against the order.[13] On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal district courts generally cannot issue nationwide injunctions, but made no decision to the underlying birthright citizenship question. Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared to endorse class-wide injunctions in his concurring opinion.[14]

Lower courts

[edit]

The day of the court's ruling in Trump v. CASA, the American Civil Liberties Union, seeing a class action as the best means to challenge the order, filed Barbara v. Trump, asking the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire to grant a class-wide injunction covering those who would not qualify for birthright citizenship under the executive order.[15] The representative plaintiff, Barbara, a Honduran citizen, is only known by her first name because she fears for her and her family's safety.[16] CASA de Maryland filed a similar motion as well.[17]

On July 10, 2025, Judge Joseph Laplante granted the ACLU's request, certified a class of born and unborn babies who would be deprived of their citizenship per the administration's policy, and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the order from being enforced upon that class.[18][19][20]

A separate case, Washington v. Trump, that had been consolidated with Trump v. CASA at the Supreme Court and similarly had its nationwide injunction lifted, was heard in full by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in June 2025. The Ninth Circuit ruled in July 2025 that Trump's executive order was unconstitutional, the first appeals court to reach this finding, and deemed that this case necessitated a national injunction based on the Supreme Court's limited exceptions outlined in CASA.[21] Though the administration had also petitioned this decision to the Supreme Court, it had not been picked up along with Barbara.[2]

Supreme Court

[edit]
Protests outside the Supreme Court building on April 1, 2026, after arguments were presented in the case

The Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court in September 2025, challenging the district court's injunction in Barbara[22] and asserting high stakes.[6] In December 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment[23] as permitted by its procedures "upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination".[24] The question was "whether the Executive Order complies on its face with the Citizenship Clause and with 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies that Clause."[25][26]

Writing for the American Bar Association, legal scholar Steven D. Schwinn expected the government to face an uphill battle, given the Court's emphasis on history, tradition, and original understanding.[6] Legal scholar Michael C. Dorf also expected the executive order to be struck down but cautioned that the Roberts Court seemed unpredictable. Puzzled by the Court's granting of certiorari, he speculated on possible explanations (e.g., justices' interest, institutional caution, nonpartisanship signaling).[27]

Amicus briefs

[edit]

For petitioners

[edit]

Eighteen amici curiae were filed in support of President Trump,[28] including New York University law professor Richard Epstein,[29] legal scholars Hans von Spakovsky and Ilan Wurman, Senators Ted Cruz and Eric Schmitt, Representatives Claudia Tenney, Chip Roy, and 27 other Republican members of Congress, Gun Owners of America, the organization Citizens United, and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund,[30] the Republican attorneys general of 25 U.S. states and Guam,[31] and the Federation for American Immigration Reform.[32]

For respondents

[edit]

After the class respondents filed their brief on February 19, 2026, they were joined in condemnation of the order by briefs in 42 amici curiae from across the legal profession, civil rights groups, and others. Organizations writing in response included the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the League of Women Voters, and the National Urban League,[33] as well as more than 200 other immigrants' rights, legal defense, civil rights, veterans' rights nonprofits and organizations, 19 labor unions, hundreds of legal scholars and professors, and scholars on migration, sociology, economics, and political science.[34]

Support also came from elected officials, including 217 Democratic members of Congress,[35] more than 130 state and local governments and dozens of current and former judges,[36] and over a dozen "former White House lawyers, senior government officials, federal judges, governors, and members of Congress who were appointed or nominated by Republican presidents, or who were elected as Republicans."[37]

Oral arguments

[edit]

Oral arguments were heard on April 1, 2026.[38] Trump attended a portion of the session, an official first for any sitting president,[39][40][41] having raised the possibility online the night before.[41] Fox News viewed this as a sign of Barbara's importance to him and its nature as a "landmark case, which could upend more than 100 years of precedent that has allowed most babies born in the U.S. to receive automatic citizenship."[42] John Eastman, a legal scholar better known for arguments against birthright citizenship before his role in attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, also attended.[41]

Justices did not acknowledge Trump, who sat calmly in the front row of the public gallery. Parents of children in the plaintiff class did not attend.[41] U.S. solicitor general D. John Sauer spoke about twice as much as the ACLU's Cecillia Wang.[43][44] Questioning was mild[41] but skeptical of Sauer's arguments, as Trump heard.[45][46][47] Arguments centered on historical understandings of the Fourteenth Amendment, including precedent[43] like Wong Kim Ark, which Wang said controlled the case.[48][49] Justice Sotomayor said of Sauer that "you are asking us to overrule Wong Kim Ark."[48][50] Sauer responded that he was not[51] and argued that he was only asking the Court to narrow it, claiming that it only decided permanent lawful residents due to its use of the word "domicile".[48][52][a]

Sauer's argument

[edit]

Sauer argued that the Citizenship Clause required both U.S. birth and being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S., which he interpreted as requiring primary national allegiance. Citing historical practice, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and precedent, he argued that citizenship had always traditionally depended on allegiance and permanent lawful domicile. Because parents who are only temporarily or unlawfully present lack permanent lawful domicile and sufficient allegiance, he concluded, their U.S.-born children would not automatically be citizens.[48][52][43]

"[Y]ou're taking ... a revisionist [position] with respect to a substantial part of our history", Justice Kagan said.[48][50] Like Justices Gorsuch and Jackson, she questioned these arguments' textualism.[48][54] Sauer never mentioned the Lincoln administration, though Justice Thomas asked him to start with Dred Scott.[48][54] He did, however, argue textually that the Fourteenth Amendment was only intended for newly emancipated slaves and their children, citing late nineteenth-century attorneys Alexander Porter Morse, Francis Wharton, and George D. Collins, who interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment narrowly.[48][55]

Sauer cited Elk v. Wilkins (1884), which held that Native American children born on Indian reservations with tribal sovereignty were ineligible for birthright citizenship, as they were equivalent to "the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government".[48][56][b] Justice Sotomayor asked him about United States ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy (1957), in which the Court had asserted that "of course" a child of illegal aliens was "an American citizen at birth". She also asked about the executive order's possible retrospective application.[48][54][58]

Sauer claimed that birthright citizenship "spawned a sprawling industry of birth tourism" and that people from enemy nations "flocked to give birth" in the U.S., yet when Chief Justice Roberts asked him about the prevalence of birth tourism, Sauer answered that "no one knows for sure."[48][59] Eventually, he gave a large figure, to which Roberts replied: "Having said all that, you do agree that that has no impact on the legal analysis before us?"[48][54] Justice Kavanaugh also seemed to consider these words more relevant to public policy than judicial interpretation.[48][44] Sauer argued "we're in a new world now ... where 8 billion people are one plane ride away" from having a U.S. citizen child. Roberts replied, "well, it's a new world. It's the same Constitution".[48][60] The exchange was viewed as a blow to Sauer's argument.[54][61][62]

Wang's argument

[edit]

Wang argued that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to everyone born in the U.S. with narrow and sometimes historical exceptions (e.g., children of diplomats, foreign ships, enemy forces). Citing English common law, the Amendment's history, and precedent, she argued that "subject to the jurisdiction" referred to geographic jurisdiction, not parental allegiance or lawful domicile, that Wong Kim Ark rejected a domicile requirement, that birthright citizenship does not depend on a parent's legal immigration status or intent, and that Sauer's interpretation contradicted the Amendment's purpose.[48][52][43]

Justice Alito asked whether the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 use the same citizenship test to confront Wang with a possible inconsistency in her argument, but Justice Kavanaugh pointed out that the two laws have different texts, suggesting they may also have different meanings. Justice Barrett's questioning closely tracked Wang's core argument, suggesting that cases like Indian tribes, occupying armies, and foundlings were not exceptions to birthright citizenship so much as situations outside its scope.[48][54]

President Trump left during Wang's arguments.[63] If only for practical, administrative reasons, the Court seemed likely to rule against him.[44] Justice Kavanaugh first suggested doing so via Wong Kim Ark as Fourteenth Amendment precedent. Then he raised the doctrine of constitutional avoidance[48][26][44] and said that the decision could rest narrowly on statute (the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952) granting birthright citizenship. Wang agreed to either basis, but Sauer favored the latter as avoiding broad constitutionalization and facilitating new laws.[48][44]

An hour after leaving, Trump posted on social media: "We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow 'Birthright' Citizenship!"[63][c] Trump's assertion was incorrect since, at that time, over 30 other countries offered birthright citizenship unconditionally.[65]

Decision

[edit]

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled against President Trump, voiding the executive order, in a 6–3 decision,[66][67] within which there was a 5–4 split on the constitutionality of the order.[68][69] Three views emerged on birthright citizenship: the majority held that it was broadly granted by birthplace and sovereign authority under the Fourteenth Amendment, Kavanaugh blocked Trump's order as inconsistent with statute without endorsing the majority's sweeping rule, and dissenters held forth at length on historical counter-narratives, centering their concerns around allegiance. The majority distinctly stressed common law and the dissents immigration.[70]

Majority opinion and concurrences

[edit]
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion in Barbara.

The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, and joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson, constitutionalized the issue.[68] The opinion held that "[p]eople born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause".[71][72]

Rejecting the government's argument that the Fourteenth Amendment tied birthright citizenship to primary allegiance based on parental domicile, the opinion held that the Citizenship Clause imposed no such requirement and found little historical support for that interpretation:[71][72][73]

Attempts to narrow Wong Kim Ark by noting that the Court's opinion repeatedly referred to the domicile of Wong's parents fail because the holding's underlying reasoning cannot be squared with a domicile requirement; the Court exhaustively canvassed the text and history of the Citizenship Clause and at no point identified any evidence that the ratifiers thought themselves to be imposing a domicile limitation.

The opinion traced a history of U.S. citizenship from English common law and jus soli, or the right of soil, as carried to America and, after the American Revolution, prevailing in every state.[71][73] The opinion cited Lynch v. Clarke (1844), a case at New York's state high court which found that an Irish child whose parents lived in New York for four years was a citizen by birth.[71][74] But in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), the opinion continued, the U.S. Supreme Court departed from common law and adopted a view that citizenship was based on jus sanguinis, or the right of blood, in order to exclude the descendants of slaves.[71][73] This was repudiated by abolitionists, it noted.[71][74]

Amid the American Civil War (1861–1865), the opinion continued, President Abraham Lincoln's attorney general Edward Bates issued a landmark legal opinion that "every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen ... without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstances." This affirmed the right of soil, the majority's opinion noted.[71][75] Congress' Radical Republicans, it noted, followed Bates' opinion, further affirming jus soli with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which declared "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, ... citizens".[71][75][73]

But, the majority's opinion continued, the act's opponents argued that Congress could not grant citizenship in such a vast way, with rulings following Dred Scott that might render Bates' opinion and the new act unconstitutional. Therefore, it held, both Congress and the states finished the matter by ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment, putting the "great question of citizenship" over and "beyond the legislative power" as settled constitutionally, "once and for all". With this, the opinion explained,[71][75][73]

A child born on American soil and subject to American law was made an American citizen .... To be "subject to" the jurisdiction of the United States, then, is to "liv[e] under" its "dominion", ... a meaning reinforced by the Clause's territorial focus on those born "in" the United States. The Citizenship Clause uses jurisdiction in its ordinary sense—referring to the power of the United States to govern those within its territory.

The opinion reaffirmed the principle of "[w]hat the Court held in Wong Kim Ark", namely that "the Citizenship Clause incorporated the common law and granted citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States". The opinion added that "in the 128 years since, [the Court has] repeatedly understood the rule ... to guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its power."[72] The opinion concluded that "citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to 'every free-born person in this land.' We keep that promise today."[71][66][67]

Jackson's concurrence

[edit]

Justice Jackson's concurring opinion, joined by Justice Sotomayor as to the introduction and first part,[71] called the Reconstruction Amendments an "anticaste, antisubordination reset for the Nation, not a mere spot treatment for the dark stain of slavery", and warned against "Justice Thomas's telling elid[ing] the entire point of the Second Founding".[71][76] The concurrence called it "the ultimate irony" that his dissent rejected Dred Scott yet endorsed its core claim that "for certain people, being born on American soil will not suffice to confer citizenship", an "odious claim that the Citizenship Clause plainly rejects".[77]

Quoting social reformer and abolitionist Frederick Douglass[78] on the importance of national memory,[71][77] the concurrence set the Citizenship Clause within Black Americans' long struggle for freedom and equal rights, and within a "universalist" understanding of liberty and equality[71][79] as they "fought for the shared humanity of all people".[71][80][81] The Fourteenth Amendment's framers aimed toward the "'perfect equality of every human being before the law'", the concurrence concluded, and "a majority ... remembered this today ... and preserved the most basic ... principle of our Nation's founding—that all human beings are created equal—once more".[77]

Kavanaugh's concurrence and dissent

[edit]

Justice Kavanaugh's opinion concurred in the judgment voiding the executive order but dissented from the majority's reasoning, arguing that the Citizenship Clause does not necessarily guarantee citizenship to children of "foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country". It accepted, however, that Congress has long operated on the understanding that it does, incorporating that view into the Nationality Act of 1940 and later immigration statutes. On that basis, the opinion concluded that the executive order is unlawful, though not unconstitutional,[71][78] with legal and political implications if Congress were to amend the governing citizenship statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), with new legislation. The dissenting opinions reportedly encouraged this.[73]

Dissents

[edit]

Justice Thomas wrote his longest dissenting opinion in his tenure on the Court,[82] which Justice Gorsuch joined.[76][70] Quoting Frederick Douglass,[71][78] the opinion argued that American blacks were entitled to citizenship as Americans with "no other homeland" or foreign allegiance, a status not true "for the children of foreign temporary visitors".[71][82] The opinion further argued that the Fourteenth Amendment had first centered on "equal rights for the freed blacks" but had been "repurposed" to grant citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors.[71][76] (The majority opinion termed this historical argument "revisionist".)[71][76]

Justices Alito and Gorsuch also wrote separate dissenting opinions.[83] Alito's opinion called Barbara "one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court" and "a serious mistake." It argued that the Fourteenth Amendment conferred citizenship only on children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to the United States, and read Wong Kim Ark as limited to children of parents lawfully present and permanently domiciled in the country.[84] Gorsuch's opinion would have rejected the facial challenge because, in its view, the executive order was lawful at least as applied to children born to temporary visitors.[85]

Reactions and commentary

[edit]

Early polls and immediate reaction

[edit]

The case led news headlines throughout its court term and mixed predictable outcomes with unexpected nuances.[70] Polls conducted shortly before the ruling showed a majority of Americans supported birthright citizenship, including most independents and a plurality of Republicans. Most Republicans who did not identify with the Make America Great Again movement were also opposed to ending birthright citizenship.[86][87]

Calling the decision "too bad for our Country", President Trump said birthright citizenship was "expensive and unfair" to the U.S. and that Congress "should start TODAY" to "easily" address it legislatively.[88][89] The Associated Press called the "easily" part incorrect insofar as Roberts' majority opinion was grounded in Constitutional interpretation and therefore not addressable by an act of Congress alone.[88] Court reporter Marcia Coyle, writing for the National Constitution Center, likewise noted that any legislation seeking to alter 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) would "face steep odds in the current court", likely failing by a single Justice's vote.[73] The National Review's editorial board wrote that although Trump lost, Congress and the president still retained meaningful authority to discourage or limit birthright citizenship through legislation and enforcement, and rejected the idea that the decision permanently foreclosed reform.[90]

Representative Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, stated that "it certainly is time for us to do everything that is possible". He[89] and Heritage Foundation leader Kevin Roberts endorsed a constitutional amendment.[91] USA Today said options were speculative and unlikely amid upcoming midterm elections. Conservative hardliners, emboldened by Kavanaugh's dissent, had leverage in the House, with its very narrow Republican majority, to try forcing enactment by threatening gridlock.[89] White House aides signaled continued immigration momentum by discussing enforcement measures like targeting alleged birth tourism and fraud, and restricting entry for pregnant women.[92] The President's Department of Justice said it would prioritize investigating birth tourism schemes[93] as a national security issue.[94]

Wang said the Court "reaffirm[ed] a fundamental American promise" and continued, "A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat. Our brave clients and our legal team stand with millions of people around our country who spoke up for one of our most cherished rights." Wong Kim Ark's great-grandson Norman Wong criticized President Trump, called the executive order a "decree", and said that "[i]f it didn't fly in the face of the Constitution, the Supreme Court would have ruled differently today."[88] Immigrant rights advocates celebrated Barbara,[95][96][97][98] though its margin disappointed attorney Kica Matos.[94] Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus chair Grace Meng said Barbara protected immigrant families' American dream.[99][100]

Scholarly and political commentary

[edit]

Legal scholars Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar viewed Barbara as a landmark decision, properly grounded in the Constitution, and as a "complete repudiation" of President Trump's "lawless" executive order, enshrining "equal birthright citizenship for all born on American soil and under the American flag".[75] In group conversation with The New York Times, legal scholar William Baude viewed this and other fresh rulings on elections,[d] the Federal Reserve,[e] geofence warrants,[f] and tariffs[g] as signs of judicial independence, while legal scholar Steve Vladeck was more skeptical, viewing the decision's narrow margin and dissents as implicating the Court's ability to respond forcefully to future constitutional challenges by the Trump administration, possibly involving future elections.[101]

Journalist Amy Davidson Sorkin called Barbara a landmark in the newest stage of the long fight over birthright citizenship, noting that Roberts' majority opinion conceded that objections had existed from the start. Sorkin responded to Alito's opinion that the majority had made a "mistake", saying that the real mistake was underestimating the threat Alito and his allies posed to birthright citizenship.[78] Political advisor Stephen Miller criticized Barbara as allowing people from "third-world nations" to have U.S.-citizen children. The Atlantic's Adam Serwer viewed these remarks as racist and anti-egalitarian, and added that the narrow margin on constitutionality would likely make overturning Barbara, as with Roe v. Wade (1973), a key conservative political aim.[102]

Writing for MS NOW,[69] Brennan Center attorneys Thomas Wolf and Samuel Breidbart[103] found Kavanaugh's dissent "ominous" and said that dissents with "flawed historical narratives" offered "a road map for a right-wing Congress to complete Trump's failed job". They called the dissents, including Kavanaugh's portion, "an unsettling reminder that we were one vote away from a ruling bringing back Dred Scott".[69] Legal commentator Mark Joseph Stern concurred.[104] Vox legal journalist Ian Millhiser said that the dissents in Barbara showed that the Court was close to destabilizing core constitutional protections and the rule of law, as in Korematsu v. United States (1944).[105]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ↑ In concurrent congressional hearings, experts advocated for the same.[53]
  2. ↑ The Indian Citizenship Act (1924) codified their birthright citizenship.[57]
  3. ↑ In response to an earlier tariffs ruling, he had insulted Justices Barrett and Gorsuch.[63][64]
  4. ↑ Watson v. Republican National Committee
  5. ↑ Trump v. Cook
  6. ↑ Chatrie v. United States
  7. ↑ Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

References

[edit]
  1. ↑ "Supreme Court strikes down Trump's birthright citizenship executive order in landmark decision | Constitution Center". National Constitution Center. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  2. 1 2 3 Howe, Amy (December 5, 2025). "Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved April 4, 2026.
  3. ↑ Marcela Valdes, Birthright Citizenship Defined America. Trump Wants to Redefine It., The New York Times Magazine (January 18, 2025).
  4. ↑ Santana, Rebecca (July 1, 2026). "How the Supreme Court became a pivotal force in Trump's immigration agenda". PBS NewsHour. Associated Press. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  5. ↑ Rachel Wilson, What to know about Trump's birthright citizenship order, in charts and maps, CNN (February 6, 2025).
  6. 1 2 3 4 Schwinn, Steven D. (March 19, 2026). "Trump v. Barbara". ABA Supreme Court PREVIEW. American Bar Association. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  7. ↑ Sample, James (December 5, 2025). "What longstanding legal precedent says about birthright citizenship and the process to restrict it: Analysis". ABC News. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  8. ↑ Treisman, Rachel (January 23, 2025). "Trump wants to end birthright citizenship. That's easier said than done". NPR. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  9. ↑ Totenberg, Nina (March 14, 2025). "Trump takes birthright citizenship to the Supreme Court". NPR. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  10. ↑ Dwyer, Devin; Charalambous, Peter; Mallin, Alexander (May 15, 2025). "What to know about birthright citizenship as Supreme Court weighs blocks on Trump's order to end it". ABC News. Retrieved July 2, 2026. An estimated 150,000 children are born each year in the U.S. to parents who are not legal permanent residents, according to government data.
  11. ↑ "'Let's Fight Back': 127 Years After Momentous Supreme Court Ruling, San Francisco Honors Wong Kim Ark". KQED. April 1, 2025. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  12. ↑ Amy Howe, Trump asks Supreme Court to step in on birthright citizenship, SCOTUSblog (March 13, 2025).
  13. ↑ Lawrence Hurley, Birthright citizenship dispute at the Supreme Court has broad implications for Trump's agenda, NBC News (May 14, 2025).
  14. ↑ Root, Damon (June 27, 2025). "Supreme Court rules 6–3 for Trump, limits 'nationwide injunctions' in birthright citizenship case".
  15. ↑ Schonfeld, Zach (June 27, 2025). "Birthright citizenship plaintiffs make new push to block Trump's order nationwide".
  16. ↑ ""BARBARA;" "SARAH," by guardian, parent, and next friend "SUSAN;" and "MATTHEW," by guardian, parent, and next friend "MARK;" on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, in his official capacity, et al" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on August 31, 2025.
  17. ↑ "Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling sparks new round of legal fights". NBC News. June 27, 2025.
  18. ↑ Lee, Ella (July 10, 2025). "Judge blocks Trump birthright citizenship order after Supreme Court ruling". The Hill. Retrieved July 10, 2025.
  19. ↑ Cole, Devan (July 10, 2025). "Federal judge issues new nationwide block against Trump's order seeking to end birthright citizenship". CNN. Retrieved July 10, 2025.
  20. ↑ Ambrose, Tom; Levine, Sam (July 10, 2025). "Judge blocks Trump on birthright citizenship despite supreme court ruling – US politics live". The Guardian. Retrieved July 10, 2025.
  21. ↑ Raymond, Nate (July 25, 2025). "US appeals court blocks Trump's order curtailing birthright citizenship". Reuters. Retrieved April 4, 2026.
  22. ↑ Devan Cole; John Fritze (September 26, 2025). "Trump asks Supreme Court to decide whether he can end birthright citizenship". CNN.
  23. ↑ Hurley, Lawrence (December 5, 2025). "Supreme Court to decide if Trump can limit the constitutional right to citizenship at birth". NBC News. Retrieved December 5, 2025.
  24. ↑ "Rule 11. Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals before Judgment". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  25. ↑ "Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. p. 10. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  26. 1 2 "Trump v. Barbara: Supreme Court Considers Birthright Citizenship". Congressional Research Service. Library of Congress. April 29, 2026. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  27. ↑ Dorf, Michael C. (December 10, 2025). "Why Did SCOTUS Grant Cert in the Birthright Citizenship Case?". Dorf on Law. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  28. ↑ Howe, Amy (February 13, 2026). "A guide to some of the briefs in support of ending birthright citizenship". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved March 29, 2026.
  29. ↑ Epstein, Richard (January 2026). "Brief of amicus curiae: Professor Richard A. Epstein in support of the petitioners and reversal (No. 25-365)" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. Retrieved January 27, 2026.
  30. ↑ America's Future; Gun Owners Of America; Gun Owners Fdn. Gun Owners Of California; Citizens United; Tennessee Firearms Assn.; Tennessee Firearms Fdn.; Judicial Action Group Foundation; U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund; Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund (January 27, 2026). "Brief of Amicus Curiae America's Future, Gun Owners Of America, Gun Owners Fdn. Gun Owners Of California, Citizens United, Tennessee Firearms Assn., Tennessee Firearms Fdn., Judicial Action Group Foundation, U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund Supporting Petitioners" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. Retrieved February 27, 2026.
  31. ↑ Tennessee; Iowa; 23 Other States; Guam (January 27, 2026). "Brief of Amicus Curiae Tennessee, Iowa, 23 Other States, and Guam Supporting Petitioners" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. Retrieved February 27, 2026.
  32. ↑ Federation For American Immigration Reform (January 27, 2026). "Brief of Amicus Curiae Federation For American Immigration Reform Supporting Petitioners" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. Retrieved February 27, 2026.
  33. ↑ Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law; National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People; The League Of Women Voters; The Equal Justice Society; The National Urban League; The Leadership Conference On Civil And Human Rights (February 2026). "Brief of amicus curiae: Brief Of Amici Curiae Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law, National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People, The League Of Women Voters, The Equal Justice Society, The National Urban League, And The Leadership Conference On Civil And Human Rights In Support Of Respondents (No. 25-365)" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. Retrieved February 27, 2026.
  34. ↑ Patler, Caitlin; 141 Others; et al. (February 26, 2026). "Brief of Amicus Curiae Professors Caitlin Patler and 141 Others, et al. Supporting Respondents and Affirmance" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. Retrieved February 27, 2026.
  35. ↑ 217 Members Of Congress; et al. (February 26, 2026). "Brief of Amicus Curiae 217 Members Of Congress Supporting Respondents" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. Retrieved February 27, 2026.
  36. ↑ Local Governments and Local Government Leaders; et al. (February 26, 2026). "Brief of Amicus Curiae Local Governments and Local Government Leaders Supporting Respondents" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. Retrieved February 27, 2026.
  37. ↑ Society For The Rule Of Law and Former White House Lawyers, Senior Government Officials, Judges, Governors and Other Elected Republicans; et al. (February 26, 2026). "Brief of Amicus Curiae Society For The Rule Of Law and Former White House Lawyers, Senior Government Officials, Judges, Governors and Other Elected Republicans Supporting Respondents" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. Retrieved February 27, 2026.
  38. ↑ Howe, Amy (January 30, 2026). "Supreme Court will hear birthright citizenship case on April 1". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved February 28, 2026.
  39. ↑ Guilfoil, Kyla; Haake, Garrett; Grumbach, Gary (March 31, 2026). "Trump plans to attend oral arguments in Supreme Court birthright citizenship case". NBC News. Retrieved March 31, 2026.
  40. ↑ Charalambous, Peter; Mistry, Meghan; Stoddart, Michelle. "Trump rails against birthright citizenship after attending Supreme Court arguments". ABC News. Retrieved April 1, 2026.
  41. 1 2 3 4 5 Walsh, Mark (April 1, 2026). "Trump attends birthright citizenship argument". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  42. ↑ Oliver, Ashley (April 1, 2026). "Trump makes historic SCOTUS appearance for birthright citizenship case". Fox News. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  43. 1 2 3 4 Feldman, Adam (April 3, 2026). "What oral argument told us in the birthright citizenship case". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  44. 1 2 3 4 5 Liptak, Adam; Marimow, Ann E. (April 1, 2026). "Five Takeaways From the Birthright Citizenship Argument". The New York Times. Retrieved April 4, 2026.
  45. ↑ Sherman, Mark (April 1, 2026). "Supreme Court hears fight over Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, and he plans to be there". Associated Press. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  46. ↑ "Supreme Court seems poised to reject Trump's birthright citizenship limits as he attends arguments". Associated Press News. April 1, 2026. Retrieved April 1, 2026.
  47. ↑ "Supreme Court casts doubt on Trump's order to end birthright citizenship - CBS News". CBS News. April 1, 2026. Retrieved April 1, 2026.
  48. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 "Trump v. Barbara oral argument transcript" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. April 1, 2026. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  49. ↑ Chung, Andrew (June 30, 2026). "Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to restrict birthright citizenship". Reuters. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved July 3, 2026.
  50. 1 2 Greene, Connor; Popli, Nik (June 30, 2026). "Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship, Ruling Trump Order Unconstitutional". Time. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  51. ↑ Griffing, Alex (April 1, 2026). "Sotomayor Grills Trump Solicitor General: 'Are You Asking to Allow the Government to "Unnaturalize" People?'". Mediaite. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  52. 1 2 3 Charles, Matt; Schoenberg, Sam (2025). Raimondo, Domnick Q. (ed.). "Trump v. Barbara". Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  53. ↑ "Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof: Birthright Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment" (PDF). Congress.gov. United States Government Publishing Office. p. 132. Retrieved July 2, 2026. Wong Kim Ark ... was misinterpreted [and] some of the very broad language ... is clearly dicta, instead of the narrow and specifically identified holding, which was quite limited to people who are in this country and who bear children in this country who have a permanent lawful residence in this country, at least to act to establish allegiance to the country.
  54. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Amar, Akhil Reed; Amar, Vikram David (April 13, 2026). "Birthright citizenship: oral argument highlights". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  55. ↑ Jouvenal, Justin (March 30, 2026). "Trump officials cite white supremacists in bid to end birthright citizenship". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 30, 2026.
  56. ↑ Hurley, Lawrence (March 29, 2026). "Looking to limit birthright citizenship, Trump turns to an 1884 Supreme Court ruling against a Native American man". NBC News. Retrieved March 30, 2026.
  57. ↑ Bruyneel, Kevin (April 1, 2004). "Challenging American Boundaries: Indigenous People and the 'Gift' of U.S. Citizenship". Studies in American Political Development. Cambridge University Press. Archived from the original on June 6, 2026. Retrieved June 30, 2026.
  58. ↑ Amar, Akhil; Amar, Vikram (March 27, 2026). "Birthright citizenship: Hintopoulos, Harlan II, and 'Joltin' Joe' – mid-century elements of American greatness worth remembering on the eve of Barbara". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 3, 2026.
  59. ↑ "Could Trump next push to limit citizenship?". Yahoo News. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  60. ↑ Reichmann, Kelsey (April 1, 2026). "Trump's push to redefine American citizenship falls flat at Supreme Court". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  61. ↑ Rubin, Jordan (April 1, 2026). "How John Roberts' retort sums up the case against Trump's birthright citizenship order". MS NOW (Deadline: Legal Blog). NBCUniversal News Group. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  62. ↑ VanSickle, Abbie (June 30, 2026). "Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship, Blocking a Key Trump Policy". The New York Times. Retrieved June 30, 2026.
  63. 1 2 3 Hussein, Fatima; Sherman, Mark (April 1, 2026). "Whispers in the Supreme Court as Trump takes a front-row seat for oral arguments". Associated Press. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  64. ↑ Kruzel, John (February 20, 2026). "Trump lashes out at Supreme Court after tariffs ruling, calls justices 'disgrace'". Reuters. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  65. ↑ Smith-Schoenwalder, Cecelia (April 1, 2026). "Trump Says Only the U.S. Is 'Stupid Enough' to Allow Birthright Citizenship. This Map Shows He's Wrong". U.S. News & World Report.
  66. 1 2 Quinn, Melissa (June 30, 2026). "Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, striking down Trump's order - CBS News". CBS News. Retrieved June 30, 2026.
  67. 1 2 Shahin, Krys (June 30, 2026). "Supreme Court rules on Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship". KHOU 11. Retrieved June 30, 2026.
  68. 1 2 Sherman, Mark (June 30, 2026). "Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, rejecting Trump's proposed limits" (web). Associated Press. Associated Press. Associated Press. Retrieved July 3, 2026.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  69. 1 2 3 Wolf, Thomas; Breidbart, Samuel (June 30, 2026). "The Supreme Court saved birthright citizenship — but Kavanaugh's dissent is ominous". MSNOW. NBCUniversal News Group. Event occurs at 8:11 PM EDT. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  70. 1 2 3 Feldman, Adam (June 30, 2026). "Breaking down the birthright-citizenship decision". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  71. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Trump v. Barbara (PDF) (Court case). June 30, 2026.
  72. 1 2 3 Howe, Amy (June 30, 2026). "Supreme Court strikes down Trump's order ending birthright citizenship". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  73. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Coyle, Marcia (June 30, 2026). "In birthright citizenship opinions, a major constitutional disagreement". National Constitution Center. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  74. 1 2 McLaughlin, Dan (June 30, 2026). "Birthright Citizenship: The Majority Opinion". National Review. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  75. 1 2 3 4 Amar, Akhil Reed; Amar, Vikram David (July 1, 2026). "Three Cheers for Barbara". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  76. 1 2 3 4 Fischer, Jordan; Wise, Justin (June 30, 2026). "Jackson, Thomas Offer Dueling History of Birthright Citizenship". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  77. 1 2 3 Betts, Anna (June 30, 2026). "Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling: key takeaways". The Guardian. Retrieved July 4, 2026.
  78. 1 2 3 4 Sorkin, Amy Davidson (June 30, 2026). "The Supreme Court Upheld Birthright Citizenship, but the Fight May Not Be Over". The New Yorker. Retrieved July 4, 2026.
  79. ↑ Somin, Ilya (June 30, 2026). "BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: Supreme Court Rules Against Trump in the Birthright Citizenship Case". The Volokh Conspiracy (Reason). Retrieved July 4, 2026.
  80. ↑ Barrow, Bill (June 30, 2026). Rodriguez-Feo Vileira, Luena; McGhee, Bernard; Brown, Bridget; Pane, Lisa Marie; Clark, Nell (eds.). "Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, rejecting Trump's proposed limits: Live updates". Associated Press News. Associated Press. Retrieved July 4, 2026.
  81. ↑ Dennie, Madiba K. (June 30, 2026). "The Supreme Court's Big Birthright Citizenship Decision Is the Absolute Bare Minimum". Balls and Strikes. Retrieved July 4, 2026.
  82. 1 2 Leingang, Rachel (June 30, 2026). "US supreme court upholds birthright citizenship in blow to Trump agenda". The Guardian. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  83. ↑ Trump v. Barbara (Birthright Citizenship) SCOTUSblog, last accessed 30 June 2026
  84. ↑ "Trump v. Barbara, Alito dissent" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. June 30, 2026. Retrieved July 2, 2026. the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country
  85. ↑ "Trump v. Barbara, Gorsuch dissent" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. June 30, 2026. Retrieved July 2, 2026. The Executive Order is lawful at least as applied to children of temporary visitors.
  86. ↑ "Most Americans Favor Birthright Citizenship. That Wasn't Always True". The New York Times. June 30, 2026. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  87. ↑ "National Release – Quinnipiac University Poll". Quinnipiac University Poll. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  88. 1 2 3 Tang, Terry (July 1, 2026). "Great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark praises Supreme Court ruling affirming birthright citizenship". Associated Press. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  89. 1 2 3 Beggin, Riley (July 1, 2026). "After birthright citizenship loss, Trump considers new immigration moves". USA Today. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  90. ↑ Editorial board (June 30, 2026). "Birthright Citizenship After Barbara". National Review. Event occurs at 6:09 PM. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  91. ↑ Rego, Max (June 30, 2026). "Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling 'a tremendous betrayal' says Heritage chief". The Hill. Retrieved July 3, 2026.
  92. ↑ Ward, Myah (July 1, 2026). "Bar pregnant foreigners from entering US? Trump allies considering all options after Supreme Court defeat". Politico. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  93. ↑ Lee, Chantelle (July 1, 2026). "DOJ to Prioritize 'Birth Tourism' Probes Following Supreme Court's Birthright Citizenship Decision". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Retrieved July 3, 2026.
  94. 1 2 "Birthright citizenship ruling: US officials, lawmakers and advocates react". Al Jazeera. June 30, 2026. Retrieved July 3, 2026.
  95. ↑ Adams, Liam; Latham, Angele (June 30, 2026). "TN advocates relieved after SCOTUS birthright citizenship ruling". USA TODAY. Retrieved July 3, 2026.
  96. ↑ Rahman, Nushrat; Martin, Beki San (July 1, 2026). "Michigan immigrant advocates call Supreme Court ruling a huge win". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved July 3, 2026.
  97. ↑ Hofmann, Will; Fohner, Kara (June 30, 2026). "Asheville immigrant advocates praise Supreme Court birthright ruling". USA TODAY. Retrieved July 3, 2026.
  98. ↑ Gorel, Amy (June 30, 2026). "Mass. politicians and immigrant advocates praise Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling". WBUR. Retrieved July 3, 2026.
  99. ↑ "Democratic Caucuses Hold Press Conference on Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Birthright Citizenship" (Press release). Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. July 1, 2026. Retrieved July 3, 2026.
  100. ↑ Chowdhury, Shubhangi (July 2, 2026). "'No wannabe king will take that away': Democrats cheer Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling". The American Bazaar. Retrieved July 3, 2026.
  101. ↑ Shaw, Kate; William Baude; Stephen I. Vladeck (July 1, 2026). "Another Major Precedent Crumbles at the Supreme Court. 3 Legal Scholars Assess the Fallout". The New York Times (Guest essay). Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  102. ↑ Serwer, Adam (July 3, 2026). "These Justices Are Not Impartial". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on July 3, 2026. Retrieved July 3, 2026. [A] law professor [said], 'The main legacy of the decision is that for the next few years, this will become the new Roe v. Wade.' [C]onservatives now know they are only one vote away from eliminating birthright citizenship by judicial fiat. ... [Miller] told Fox News that 'we have people from all over the world, from third-world nations, nations that on their own would have never invented the wheel, let alone modern technology, let alone medicine, let alone air travel.' He went on: 'They can just come into the country, have a baby at a hospital paid for by you and me, and then that baby is automatically a citizen?' ... To put it bluntly, Miller's objection, as articulated here, is not to birthright citizenship. It is to the idea that 'all men are created equal.'
  103. ↑ "Thomas Wolf". Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved July 2, 2026.; "Samuel Breidbart". Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  104. ↑ Stern, Mark Joseph (June 30, 2026). "The Supreme Court's 5–4 Vote in the Birthright Citizenship Case Is a Scandal". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved July 3, 2026.
  105. ↑ Millhiser, Ian (June 30, 2026). "The Supreme Court just came one vote away from a constitutional catastrophe". Vox. Retrieved July 4, 2026.
[edit]
‹ The template below (Second presidency of Donald Trump) is being considered for merging with Authoritarian drift during the second Trump administration sidebar. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_v._Barbara&oldid=1362904098"