Trump v. Barbara
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 1, 2026
Decided June 30, 2026
Full case name Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. Barbara, et al.
Docket no. 25-365
Decision Opinion
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
Majority Roberts, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, Jackson
Concurrence Jackson, joined by Sotomayor (Introduction and Part I)
Concur/dissent Kavanaugh
Dissent Thomas, joined by Gorsuch
Dissent Alito
Dissent Gorsuch
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, cl. 1

Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. ___ (2026) is a landmark decision[1] of the United States Supreme Court, which held 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 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

See also: Background in Trump v. CASA

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' 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]

Wikisource logo
English Wikisource has original text related to this article:

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]

The executive order 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 order, City Attorney David Chiu was concerned that it "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 Kavanaugh appeared to endorse class-wide injunctions in his concurring opinion.[14]

Lower courts

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 U.S 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 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

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. He viewed the Court's granting of certiorari as puzzling and speculated on possible explanations (candid interest and uncertainty among justices, institutional caution, and nonpartisanship).[27]

Amicus briefs

For petitioners

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, 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

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 NAACP, the League of Women Voters and the National Urban League[33] and more than 200 other immigrants' rights, legal defense, civil rights, veterans' rights nonprofits and organizations, 19 labor unions, hundreds of legal scholars and professors in conjunction with scholars on migration, sociology, economics and political science.[34]

Supporters 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]

Arguments

The Trump administration argued that the language of the Fourteenth Amendment was only meant to apply to the newly emancipated slaves and their children, and not to those from other countries. They cited statements of late nineteenth century writers Alexander Porter Morse, Francis Wharton, and George D. Collins, all who proposed narrower interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment to limit who was eligible for birthright citizenship.[38]

The administration also referred to Elk v. Wilkins (1884), which held that Native American children born on Indian reservations then sovereign from the federal government 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".[39] Birthright citizenship of Native Americans was later affirmed by the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924.[40]

Oral arguments

On April 1, 2026,[41] Trump attended a portion of the oral arguments, a first for any sitting president in the official records,[42][43][44] having raised the possibility online the night before.[44] 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."[45] John Eastman, a legal scholar known for arguments against birthright citizenship (before his role in attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election), also attended.[44]

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.[44] U.S. solicitor general D. John Sauer, representing the petitioner's case, spoke about twice as much as Cecillia Wang of the ACLU, representing the respondents.[46][47] They disputed the interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Citizenship Clause. Sauer argued it required parental allegiance and domicile, which would exclude undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders. Wang argued that nearly everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen except children of diplomats or occupying forces.[48][46]

Questioning was mild[44] but skeptical of Sauer's arguments, as Trump heard.[49][50][51] Arguments centered on historical understandings of the Fourteenth Amendment, including precedent[46] like Wong Kim Ark, which respondents said controlled the case.[48][52] "[Y]ou're taking ... a revisionist [position] with respect to a substantial part of our history", said Justice Kagan to Sauer, "in large part because of Wong Kim Ark and the way people have read that case". "You are asking us to overrule Wong Kim Ark", said Justice Sotomayor.[48][53] "No", said Sauer, "we're not asking you to overrule [it]".[48][54] He was asking the Court to narrow it.[48][55][a]

Some of the debate focused on the use of "domicile" in the Wong Kim Ark case, with Sauer arguing that this would require the parents to have some permanent residence to qualify. Several justices questioned how significant the word was to that case, as residence was never a factor in debates during drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Sauer told the Court 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 questioned Sauer about the prevalence of birth tourism, Sauer answered, "No one knows for sure."[48][57] Sauer continued and 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][58] "[W]e're in a new world", Sauer said, "where 8 billion people are one plane ride away". "Well," said Roberts, "it's a new world. It's the same Constitution".[48][59] The exchange was seen as a blow.[60][61][62] Justice Kavanaugh was politely skeptical, viewing Sauer's points as a matter for public policy, not judicial interpretation.[47]

President Trump left during the opposing party's arguments.[63] The court seemed likely to rule against him for practical reasons. Justice Kavanaugh suggested doing so based on Wong Kim Ark as Fourteenth Amendment precedent. Then he raised the doctrine of constitutional avoidance,[48][26][47] to which there was laughter,[64] and said the case could be decided based on law also granting birthright citizenship, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Wang agreed to accept either ruling, but Sauer favored the latter because it would facilitate new laws and avoid constitutional issues.[48][47] An hour later, Trump posted on social media: "We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow 'Birthright' Citizenship!"[63][b]

Decision

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

Majority opinion and concurrences

The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, and joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson, constitutionalized the issue,[68] holding 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".[70][71] Rejecting the government's argument that the Fourteenth Amendment tied birthright citizenship to primary allegiance based on parental domicile, the majority held that the Citizenship Clause imposed no such requirement and found little historical support for that interpretation.[70][71] Roberts concluded:[72]

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.

He traced a history of U.S. citizenship from English common law and jus soli, or the right of soil, writing that it was carried to America and, after the American Revolution, prevailed in every state.[70][72] He 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.[70][73] But in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), he wrote, the Court departed from common law and adopted a view that citizenship was based on jus sanguinis, or the right of blood. This excluded the descendants of slaves[70][72] and was repudiated by abolitionists, he wrote.[70][73]

Amid the American Civil War (1861–1865), Roberts continued, Lincoln administration 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, Roberts noted.[70][74] Congress's Radical Republicans followed Bates' opinion, wrote Roberts, marking a return to jus soli with the watershed 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".[70][74][72]

But opponents of the Act argued that Congress could not grant citizenship in such a vast way in light of Dred Scott, which might render the statute and Bates' opinion unconstitutional, Roberts wrote. Therefore, he continued, both Congress and the states finished the matter by ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment, putting the "'great question of citizenship'" over the legislative power as settled constitutionally, "once and for all". With this, he explained,[70][74][72]

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 majority reaffirmed the principle of "[w]hat the Court held in Wong Kim Ark ... the Citizenship Clause incorporated the common law and granted citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States", adding that "in the 128 years since, we have repeatedly understood the rule ... to guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its power."[71] Roberts wrote 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."[70][66][67]

Justice Jackson wrote a concurring opinion, which Justice Sotomayor joined as to the introduction and first part.[70]

Kavanaugh's concurrence and dissent

Justice Kavanaugh wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment voiding the executive order but dissenting in the reasoning presented in the majority opinion. According to The New York Times, he "wrote that he would strike down the executive order based on federal law, not the Constitution",[62] with legal and political implications if Congress were to pass new legislation changing the current citizenship statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a). The dissenters reportedly encouraged this.[72]

Dissents

Justice Thomas wrote his longest dissenting opinion in his tenure on the Court,[75] which Justice Gorsuch joined.[76][69] He wrote that the Fourteenth Amendment had first centered on "equal rights for the freed blacks" but had been used to grant citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors,[76] and that African Americans were entitled to citizenship as Americans with "no other homeland" or foreign allegiance, a status not true "for the children of foreign temporary visitors".[75] The majority opinion termed this thinking "revisionist", and Justice Jackson wrote a separate opinion against this dissent: "Justice Thomas's telling elides the entire point of the Second Founding: The Reconstruction Amendments were an anticaste, antisubordination reset for the Nation, not a mere spot treatment for the dark stain of slavery". She called the Citizenship Clause "universalist".[76]

Justices Alito and Gorsuch also wrote separate dissenting opinions.[77] Alito wrote that the ruling was "one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court" and "a serious mistake." He argued that the Fourteenth Amendment confers 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.[78] Gorsuch would have rejected the facial challenge because, in his view, the executive order was lawful at least as applied to children born to temporary visitors.[79]

Reception

President Trump called the decision "too bad for our Country". He suggested that Congress could "easily" address it legislatively.[80] The Associated Press called Trump's legislative reasoning incorrect insofar as Roberts' majority opinion was grounded in Constitutional interpretation and therefore not addressable by an act of Congress alone.[80] Legal 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.[72]

To signal continued momentum on the president's immigration agenda despite the setback, White House aides discussed alternative immigration enforcement measures, from targeting alleged "birth tourism" and fraud to restricting entry for pregnant women.[81] 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 raised the possibility of a constitutional amendment. USA Today described the available options as speculative and unlikely amid upcoming midterm elections. President Trump wrote on social media, "Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship." Hardliners were emboldened by Kavanaugh's dissent, raising the specter of Congressional gridlock.[82]

The case led news headlines throughout its Court term and mixed predictable outcomes with unexpected nuances.[69] 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.[83][84] Wong Kim Ark's great-grandson Norman Wong criticized 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."[80]

Writing for MS NOW,[85] Brennan Center attorneys Thomas Wolf and Samuel Breidbart[86] described Trump v. Barbara as having the "narrowest possible majority" and found Kavanaugh's dissent "ominous", writing that it "built on [dissenters'] flawed historical narratives to offer 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".[85] 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.[87]

Legal scholars Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar viewed Trump v. 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".[74] In group conversation with The New York Times, legal scholar William Baude viewed this and other fresh rulings on elections,[c] the Federal Reserve,[d] geofence warrants,[e] and tariffs[f] as signs of the Court's 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.[88]

Notes

  1. ^ In concurrent congressional hearings, experts advocated for the same.[56]
  2. ^ In response to an earlier tariffs ruling, he had insulted Justices Barrett and Gorsuch.[63][65]
  3. ^ Watson v. Republican National Committee
  4. ^ Trump v. Cook
  5. ^ Chatrie v. United States
  6. ^ Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

References

  1. ^ "Supreme Court strikes down Trump's birthright citizenship executive order in landmark decision | Constitution Center". National Constitution Center. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  2. ^ a b c 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. ^ a b c d 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. ^ a b "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. ^ Jouvenal, Justin (March 30, 2026). "Trump officials cite white supremacists in bid to end birthright citizenship". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 30, 2026.
  39. ^ 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.
  40. ^ 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.
  41. ^ Howe, Amy (January 30, 2026). "Supreme Court will hear birthright citizenship case on April 1". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved February 28, 2026.
  42. ^ 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.
  43. ^ Charalambous, Peter; Mistry, Meghan; Stoddart, Michelle. "Trump rails against birthright citizenship after attending Supreme Court arguments". ABC News. Retrieved April 1, 2026.
  44. ^ a b c d e Walsh, Mark (April 1, 2026). "Trump attends birthright citizenship argument". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  45. ^ Oliver, Ashley (April 1, 2026). "Trump makes historic SCOTUS appearance for birthright citizenship case". Fox News. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  46. ^ a b c Feldman, Adam (April 3, 2026). "What oral argument told us in the birthright citizenship case". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  47. ^ a b c d Liptak, Adam; Marimow, Ann E. (April 1, 2026). "Five Takeaways From the Birthright Citizenship Argument". The New York Times. Retrieved April 4, 2026.
  48. ^ a b c d e f g h i j "Trump v. Barbara oral argument transcript" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. April 1, 2026. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  49. ^ 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.
  50. ^ "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.
  51. ^ "Supreme Court casts doubt on Trump's order to end birthright citizenship - CBS News". CBS News. April 1, 2026. Retrieved April 1, 2026.
  52. ^ Chung, Andrew (June 30, 2026). "Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to restrict birthright citizenship". Reuters. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved July 3, 2026.
  53. ^ Greene, Connor; Popli, Nik (June 30, 2026). "Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship, Ruling Trump Order Unconstitutional". Time. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  54. ^ 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.
  55. ^ Charles, Matt; Schoenberg, Sam (2025). Raimondo, Domnick Q. (ed.). "Trump v. Barbara". Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Retrieved July 2, 2026. Trump reads Wong Kim Ark as limiting citizenship to the children of aliens with a permanent, lawful domicile in the United States. Trump insists that the fact that Wong Kim Ark's parents were domiciled residents was central to the Supreme Court's analysis, noting that domicile is mentioned in the opinion twenty-two times.
  56. ^ "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.
  57. ^ "Could Trump next push to limit citizenship?". Yahoo News. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  58. ^ Amar, Akhil Reed; Amar, Vikram David (April 13, 2026). "Birthright citizenship: oral argument highlights". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  59. ^ Reichmann, Kelsey (April 1, 2026). "Trump's push to redefine American citizenship falls flat at Supreme Court". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  60. ^ Amar, Akhil Reed; Amar, Vikram David (April 13, 2026). "Birthright citizenship: oral argument highlights". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 2, 2026. ... the chief administered the coup de grace ...
  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. ^ a b VanSickle, Abbie (June 30, 2026). "Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship, Blocking a Key Trump Policy". The New York Times. Retrieved June 30, 2026.
  63. ^ a b c 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. ^ Christopher, Tommy (April 1, 2026). "Laughter Erupts As Trump-Appointed Justice Floats 2 Losing Scenarios for Trump Birthright Case". Mediaite. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  65. ^ Kruzel, John (February 20, 2026). "Trump lashes out at Supreme Court after tariffs ruling, calls justices 'disgrace'". Reuters. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  66. ^ a b Quinn, Melissa (June 30, 2026). "Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, striking down Trump's order - CBS News". CBS News. Retrieved June 30, 2026.
  67. ^ a b Shahin, Krys (June 30, 2026). "Supreme Court rules on Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship". KHOU 11. Retrieved June 30, 2026.
  68. ^ a b 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. ^ a b c Feldman, Adam (June 30, 2026). "Breaking down the birthright-citizenship decision". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  70. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Trump v. Barbara (PDF) (Court case). June 30, 2026.
  71. ^ a b c Howe, Amy (June 30, 2026). "Supreme Court strikes down Trump's order ending birthright citizenship". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  72. ^ a b c d e f g Coyle, Marcia (June 30, 2026). "In birthright citizenship opinions, a major constitutional disagreement". National Constitution Center. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  73. ^ a b McLaughlin, Dan (June 30, 2026). "Birthright Citizenship: The Majority Opinion". National Review. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  74. ^ a b c d Amar, Akhil Reed; Amar, Vikram David (July 1, 2026). "Three Cheers for Barbara". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  75. ^ a b Leingang, Rachel (June 30, 2026). "US supreme court upholds birthright citizenship in blow to Trump agenda". The Guardian. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  76. ^ a b c Fischer, Jordan; Wise, Justin (June 30, 2026). "Jackson, Thomas Offer Dueling History of Birthright Citizenship". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  77. ^ Trump v. Barbara (Birthright Citizenship) SCOTUSblog, last accessed 30 June 2026
  78. ^ "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
  79. ^ "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.
  80. ^ a b c Tang, Terry (July 1, 2026). "Great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark praises Supreme Court ruling affirming birthright citizenship". Associated Press. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  81. ^ 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.
  82. ^ Beggin, Riley (July 1, 2026). "After birthright citizenship loss, Trump considers new immigration moves". USA Today. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  83. ^ "Most Americans Favor Birthright Citizenship. That Wasn't Always True". The New York Times. June 30, 2026. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  84. ^ "National Release – Quinnipiac University Poll". Quinnipiac University Poll. Retrieved July 1, 2026.
  85. ^ a b 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.
  86. ^ "Thomas Wolf". Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved July 2, 2026.; "Samuel Breidbart". Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  87. ^ Editorial board (June 30, 2026). "Birthright Citizenship After Barbara". National Review. Event occurs at 6:09 PM. Retrieved July 2, 2026.
  88. ^ 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.
‹ 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. ›