US Supreme Court

The Associated Press

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

The decision, in line with the longstanding judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment, comes on the final day of a Supreme Court term that has centered on Trump’s expansive claims of presidential power — and largely ruled in his favor.

In its other Tuesday rulings, the court upheld laws in roughly half the states that prohibit transgender girls and women from playing on their public school and college sport teams and struck down limits on party spending in federal elections.

Much of Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion was a history lesson on English common law, in which he concluded that birthright citizenship has always depended primarily on birthplace — not on parents’ immigration status or domicile.

“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,'” Roberts wrote for the court, citing congressional debate over the amendment, “We keep that promise today.”

“We break no new ground today,” Roberts said on the bench as he read the court’s majority opinion.

In a memo circulated hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding birthright citizenship, the deputy attorney general’s office directed prosecutors to “prioritize the investigation and prosecution” of fraudulent “birth tourism” schemes.

In seeking to end birthright citizenship, the Trump administration pointed to “birth tourism” networks that arrange for non-U.S. citizens to come to the country solely to give birth.

The president said the Supreme Court’s decision upholding that anyone born in the United States automatically becomes an American citizen was “too bad for our Country,” but that Congress could “easily” address it with legislation.

“The president was never going to win, in the sense that his executive order was going to be overturned,” said Mark Krikorian, the director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank favoring restrictive immigration policies. “The question was if the Supreme Court would accept the ACLU’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.”

The ruling “constitutionalized the question” of birthright citizenship, he said, requiring changes through a constitutional amendment.

That, he argued, is highly unlikely: “Congress can’t rename post offices, let alone do anything else.”

But, he said, birthright could now become a powerful political wedge issue, similar to the court’s 1973 abortion ruling, which was overturned in 2022.

“It’ll distort our politics the way Roe vs. Wade did in energizing a political movement,” he said.

The Trump administration says birthright citizenship has created what it calls a birth tourism industry.

“It is unacceptable for foreign parents to use a U.S. tourist visa for the primary purpose of giving birth in the United States to obtain citizenship for the child,” the State Department said in a post on X. “Those who abuse our immigration system through birth tourism may be ineligible for future visas or travel to the United States.”

Justice Thomas said the majority misunderstands the 14th Amendment He insists the majority opinion perpetuates a misunderstanding and misapplication of the 14th amendment.

The citizenship clause and related Reconstruction statutes granted citizenship “to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race,” he wrote. But “neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States.”

He continued: “Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority.”

Meanwhile, a lawyer representing trans female athletes in pending litigation in multiple states described the Supreme Court’s ruling that upheld state laws barring transgender girls and women from playing on school athletic teams as “a very narrow decision.”

Susan Cirilli, whose clients include former Swarthmore College cross-country runner Evie Parts, reiterated that there remains no federal law in the country that prohibits transgender women from participating in sports and argues that President Trump’s executive order cannot supersede state law.