Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Barbara et al.
No. 25-365 · Decided June 30, 2026 · Affirmed
Does the Constitution guarantee citizenship to children born in the United States of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country? 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 Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES · Argued April 1, 2026
Parties — Petitioner: TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. · Respondent: BARBARA ET AL.
Vote & lineup5–4 on the judgment. Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, Jackson (5). Dissent(s): Kavanaugh; Thomas (joined by Gorsuch); Alito, Gorsuch. Concurrence(s): Jackson (joined by Sotomayor).
Who prevailed — The respondents prevailed in that the Court affirmed the District Court's preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Executive Order No. 14160.
The question

Does the Constitution guarantee citizenship to children born in the United States of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country? Specifically, the Court must determine if such children are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This question arises from a challenge to Executive Order No. 14160, which denies citizenship to children of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present.

Petitioner's argument
  • The Citizenship Clause requires a "greater quantum of allegiance" than mere birth, specifically one based on domicile (the place of one's permanent home).
  • The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" refers to a "complete jurisdiction" that excludes those who owe allegiance to a foreign power.
  • The common law rule of *jus soli* was modified in the U.S. to ensure that citizens are those who call the country home.
  • The Executive Order is a lawful interpretation of the Constitution's intent to avoid "birth tourism" and dual allegiances.
Respondent's argument
  • The Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause guarantees citizenship to all persons born in the U.S. regardless of their parents' legal status.
  • The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" incorporates the common law rule of *jus soli*, which grants citizenship to anyone born within the sovereign's dominions.
  • *United States v. Wong Kim Ark* established that birthright citizenship is a "fundamental rule" excluding only a few narrow categories, such as children of foreign ministers.
  • Executive Order No. 14160 violates both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The decision
  • 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 Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
  • The Court relies on the English common law principle of *jus soli* (right of the soil), citing *Calvin’s Case* and Blackstone’s *Commentaries on the Laws of England*, where children born within the sovereign's dominions owed natural allegiance.
  • The Court notes that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to repudiate the holding in *Dred Scott v. Sandford*, which had erroneously prioritized "blood" over "soil."
  • The Court interprets "subject to the jurisdiction" as the "full and complete power of a nation within its own territories," citing *Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon*.
  • The Court identifies only narrow exceptions to this rule, such as children of foreign ministers (due to a "fiction of extraterritoriality") and, historically, members of Indian tribes.
  • The Court affirms that *United States v. Wong Kim Ark* confirms the "fundamental rule of citizenship by birth," excluding only those recognized as exempt from the country's jurisdiction.
  • The Court rejects the "domicile" requirement, stating that "domicile and national citizenship are distinct concepts" and that no evidence exists that the Fourteenth Amendment's ratifiers intended a domicile limitation.
  • The Court concludes that the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause does not contain the words "mother," "father," "lawful," or "temporary," and thus cannot be read to include those restrictions.
Separate opinions
Jackson, concurring (joined by Sotomayor)
  • Argues the Fourteenth Amendment was an "anticaste, antisubordination reset" intended to create a universalist vision of belonging.
  • Contends that the "universalist" application of the Citizenship Clause was necessary to achieve the Amendment's race-conscious remedial purposes.
Kavanaugh, concurring in part and dissenting in part
  • Argues the Order violates 8 U.S.C. §1401(a) because the statute adopts the *Wong Kim Ark* rule, but disagrees that the Order is unconstitutional.
  • Contends that the "closed set" of exceptions in *Wong Kim Ark* is incorrect and that new exceptions can be recognized to address modern conditions like illegal immigration.
Thomas, dissenting (joined by Gorsuch)
  • Argues that citizenship requires both birth and domicile, citing the "settler ethos" and the need to avoid dual allegiances.
  • Contends that "subject to the jurisdiction" means "complete jurisdiction," which excludes children of temporary visitors who remain subject to a foreign power.
Alito, dissenting
  • Argues the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship only to those who owe allegiance solely to the U.S. and are "not subject to any foreign power."
  • Relies on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and argues that *United States v. Wong Kim Ark* is limited to parents who were permanently domiciled in the U.S.
Gorsuch, dissenting
  • Joins Justice Thomas's dissent and emphasizes that the Order is not facially invalid because it is lawful as applied to temporary visitors.
  • Questions whether children of parents who are permanently domiciled but present illegally are entitled to citizenship.
Read the full opinion on supremecourt.gov (PDF) →