WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born in the country are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.
But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.
They said the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to waves of illegal or temporary visitors.
The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.
In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.
In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.
He left after an hour, having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.
Two hours after the decision was released Tuesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the Supreme Court’s decision was “bad for our country.”
But he nodded to Kavanaugh’s partial dissent, in which the justice wrote that Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
“But Congress has not yet done so,” Kavanaugh added.
“We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President,” Trump wrote.
The exchange suggests that the political fight over citizenship and “birth tourism” may continue despite the court’s verdict.
Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said the decision “reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the son of Mexican immigrants, said the fight over birthright citizenship was personal.
“While we celebrate this ruling today, we cannot rest,” he said. “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy and the notion of what it means to be American.”
But Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors more restrictions, said the decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, says: “All 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.”
The amendment overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which declared that Black people could not become U.S. citizens.
In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.
In the 19th century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.
In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in the country.
The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”
Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.
But on his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote. And in the future, he said, it would not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visas.
His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.
In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”
By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.
Thomas wrote a 91-page dissent arguing for a limited view of the 14th Amendment.
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power,” he wrote. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors … lacked similar bonds to this country.”
In a separate 39-page dissent, Alito asserted the “court has made a serious mistake.”
The 14th Amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country” but not to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child,” he wrote.
While Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws, he came to office seeking to make major changes through executive orders.
Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney argued the surge of illegal immigration called for a change in the citizenship laws.
“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.
“It’s a new world,” responded Roberts. “It’s the same Constitution.”
Times staff writer Andrea Castillo in Washington contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born in the country are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.
But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.
They said the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to waves of illegal or temporary visitors.
The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.
In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.
In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.
He left after an hour, having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.
Two hours after the decision was released Tuesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the Supreme Court’s decision was “bad for our country.”
But he nodded to Kavanaugh’s partial dissent, in which the justice wrote that Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
“But Congress has not yet done so,” Kavanaugh added.
“We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President,” Trump wrote.
The exchange suggests that the political fight over citizenship and “birth tourism” may continue despite the court’s verdict.
Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said the decision “reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the son of Mexican immigrants, said the fight over birthright citizenship was personal.
“While we celebrate this ruling today, we cannot rest,” he said. “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy and the notion of what it means to be American.”
But Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors more restrictions, said the decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, says: “All 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.”
The amendment overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which declared that Black people could not become U.S. citizens.
In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.
In the 19th century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.
In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in the country.
The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”
Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.
But on his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote. And in the future, he said, it would not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visas.
His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.
In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”
By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.
Thomas wrote a 91-page dissent arguing for a limited view of the 14th Amendment.
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power,” he wrote. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors … lacked similar bonds to this country.”
In a separate 39-page dissent, Alito asserted the “court has made a serious mistake.”
The 14th Amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country” but not to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child,” he wrote.
While Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws, he came to office seeking to make major changes through executive orders.
Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney argued the surge of illegal immigration called for a change in the citizenship laws.
“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.
“It’s a new world,” responded Roberts. “It’s the same Constitution.”
Times staff writer Andrea Castillo in Washington contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born in the country are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.
But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.
They said the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to waves of illegal or temporary visitors.
The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.
In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.
In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.
He left after an hour, having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.
Two hours after the decision was released Tuesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the Supreme Court’s decision was “bad for our country.”
But he nodded to Kavanaugh’s partial dissent, in which the justice wrote that Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
“But Congress has not yet done so,” Kavanaugh added.
“We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President,” Trump wrote.
The exchange suggests that the political fight over citizenship and “birth tourism” may continue despite the court’s verdict.
Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said the decision “reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the son of Mexican immigrants, said the fight over birthright citizenship was personal.
“While we celebrate this ruling today, we cannot rest,” he said. “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy and the notion of what it means to be American.”
But Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors more restrictions, said the decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, says: “All 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.”
The amendment overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which declared that Black people could not become U.S. citizens.
In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.
In the 19th century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.
In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in the country.
The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”
Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.
But on his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote. And in the future, he said, it would not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visas.
His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.
In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”
By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.
Thomas wrote a 91-page dissent arguing for a limited view of the 14th Amendment.
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power,” he wrote. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors … lacked similar bonds to this country.”
In a separate 39-page dissent, Alito asserted the “court has made a serious mistake.”
The 14th Amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country” but not to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child,” he wrote.
While Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws, he came to office seeking to make major changes through executive orders.
Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney argued the surge of illegal immigration called for a change in the citizenship laws.
“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.
“It’s a new world,” responded Roberts. “It’s the same Constitution.”
Times staff writer Andrea Castillo in Washington contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born in the country are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.
But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.
They said the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to waves of illegal or temporary visitors.
The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.
In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.
In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.
He left after an hour, having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.
Two hours after the decision was released Tuesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the Supreme Court’s decision was “bad for our country.”
But he nodded to Kavanaugh’s partial dissent, in which the justice wrote that Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
“But Congress has not yet done so,” Kavanaugh added.
“We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President,” Trump wrote.
The exchange suggests that the political fight over citizenship and “birth tourism” may continue despite the court’s verdict.
Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said the decision “reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the son of Mexican immigrants, said the fight over birthright citizenship was personal.
“While we celebrate this ruling today, we cannot rest,” he said. “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy and the notion of what it means to be American.”
But Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors more restrictions, said the decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, says: “All 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.”
The amendment overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which declared that Black people could not become U.S. citizens.
In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.
In the 19th century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.
In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in the country.
The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”
Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.
But on his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote. And in the future, he said, it would not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visas.
His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.
In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”
By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.
Thomas wrote a 91-page dissent arguing for a limited view of the 14th Amendment.
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power,” he wrote. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors … lacked similar bonds to this country.”
In a separate 39-page dissent, Alito asserted the “court has made a serious mistake.”
The 14th Amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country” but not to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child,” he wrote.
While Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws, he came to office seeking to make major changes through executive orders.
Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney argued the surge of illegal immigration called for a change in the citizenship laws.
“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.
“It’s a new world,” responded Roberts. “It’s the same Constitution.”
Times staff writer Andrea Castillo in Washington contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born in the country are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.
But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.
They said the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to waves of illegal or temporary visitors.
The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.
In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.
In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.
He left after an hour, having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.
Two hours after the decision was released Tuesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the Supreme Court’s decision was “bad for our country.”
But he nodded to Kavanaugh’s partial dissent, in which the justice wrote that Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
“But Congress has not yet done so,” Kavanaugh added.
“We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President,” Trump wrote.
The exchange suggests that the political fight over citizenship and “birth tourism” may continue despite the court’s verdict.
Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said the decision “reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the son of Mexican immigrants, said the fight over birthright citizenship was personal.
“While we celebrate this ruling today, we cannot rest,” he said. “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy and the notion of what it means to be American.”
But Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors more restrictions, said the decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, says: “All 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.”
The amendment overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which declared that Black people could not become U.S. citizens.
In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.
In the 19th century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.
In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in the country.
The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”
Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.
But on his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote. And in the future, he said, it would not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visas.
His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.
In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”
By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.
Thomas wrote a 91-page dissent arguing for a limited view of the 14th Amendment.
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power,” he wrote. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors … lacked similar bonds to this country.”
In a separate 39-page dissent, Alito asserted the “court has made a serious mistake.”
The 14th Amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country” but not to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child,” he wrote.
While Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws, he came to office seeking to make major changes through executive orders.
Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney argued the surge of illegal immigration called for a change in the citizenship laws.
“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.
“It’s a new world,” responded Roberts. “It’s the same Constitution.”
Times staff writer Andrea Castillo in Washington contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born in the country are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.
But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.
They said the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to waves of illegal or temporary visitors.
The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.
In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.
In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.
He left after an hour, having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.
Two hours after the decision was released Tuesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the Supreme Court’s decision was “bad for our country.”
But he nodded to Kavanaugh’s partial dissent, in which the justice wrote that Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
“But Congress has not yet done so,” Kavanaugh added.
“We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President,” Trump wrote.
The exchange suggests that the political fight over citizenship and “birth tourism” may continue despite the court’s verdict.
Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said the decision “reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the son of Mexican immigrants, said the fight over birthright citizenship was personal.
“While we celebrate this ruling today, we cannot rest,” he said. “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy and the notion of what it means to be American.”
But Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors more restrictions, said the decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, says: “All 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.”
The amendment overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which declared that Black people could not become U.S. citizens.
In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.
In the 19th century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.
In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in the country.
The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”
Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.
But on his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote. And in the future, he said, it would not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visas.
His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.
In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”
By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.
Thomas wrote a 91-page dissent arguing for a limited view of the 14th Amendment.
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power,” he wrote. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors … lacked similar bonds to this country.”
In a separate 39-page dissent, Alito asserted the “court has made a serious mistake.”
The 14th Amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country” but not to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child,” he wrote.
While Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws, he came to office seeking to make major changes through executive orders.
Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney argued the surge of illegal immigration called for a change in the citizenship laws.
“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.
“It’s a new world,” responded Roberts. “It’s the same Constitution.”
Times staff writer Andrea Castillo in Washington contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born in the country are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.
But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.
They said the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to waves of illegal or temporary visitors.
The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.
In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.
In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.
He left after an hour, having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.
Two hours after the decision was released Tuesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the Supreme Court’s decision was “bad for our country.”
But he nodded to Kavanaugh’s partial dissent, in which the justice wrote that Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
“But Congress has not yet done so,” Kavanaugh added.
“We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President,” Trump wrote.
The exchange suggests that the political fight over citizenship and “birth tourism” may continue despite the court’s verdict.
Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said the decision “reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the son of Mexican immigrants, said the fight over birthright citizenship was personal.
“While we celebrate this ruling today, we cannot rest,” he said. “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy and the notion of what it means to be American.”
But Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors more restrictions, said the decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, says: “All 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.”
The amendment overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which declared that Black people could not become U.S. citizens.
In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.
In the 19th century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.
In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in the country.
The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”
Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.
But on his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote. And in the future, he said, it would not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visas.
His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.
In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”
By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.
Thomas wrote a 91-page dissent arguing for a limited view of the 14th Amendment.
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power,” he wrote. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors … lacked similar bonds to this country.”
In a separate 39-page dissent, Alito asserted the “court has made a serious mistake.”
The 14th Amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country” but not to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child,” he wrote.
While Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws, he came to office seeking to make major changes through executive orders.
Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney argued the surge of illegal immigration called for a change in the citizenship laws.
“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.
“It’s a new world,” responded Roberts. “It’s the same Constitution.”
Times staff writer Andrea Castillo in Washington contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born in the country are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.
But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.
They said the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to waves of illegal or temporary visitors.
The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.
In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.
In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.
He left after an hour, having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.
Two hours after the decision was released Tuesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the Supreme Court’s decision was “bad for our country.”
But he nodded to Kavanaugh’s partial dissent, in which the justice wrote that Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
“But Congress has not yet done so,” Kavanaugh added.
“We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President,” Trump wrote.
The exchange suggests that the political fight over citizenship and “birth tourism” may continue despite the court’s verdict.
Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said the decision “reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the son of Mexican immigrants, said the fight over birthright citizenship was personal.
“While we celebrate this ruling today, we cannot rest,” he said. “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy and the notion of what it means to be American.”
But Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors more restrictions, said the decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, says: “All 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.”
The amendment overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which declared that Black people could not become U.S. citizens.
In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.
In the 19th century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.
In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in the country.
The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”
Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.
But on his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote. And in the future, he said, it would not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visas.
His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.
In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”
By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.
Thomas wrote a 91-page dissent arguing for a limited view of the 14th Amendment.
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power,” he wrote. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors … lacked similar bonds to this country.”
In a separate 39-page dissent, Alito asserted the “court has made a serious mistake.”
The 14th Amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country” but not to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child,” he wrote.
While Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws, he came to office seeking to make major changes through executive orders.
Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney argued the surge of illegal immigration called for a change in the citizenship laws.
“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.
“It’s a new world,” responded Roberts. “It’s the same Constitution.”
Times staff writer Andrea Castillo in Washington contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born in the country are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.
But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.
They said the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to waves of illegal or temporary visitors.
The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.
In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.
In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.
He left after an hour, having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.
Two hours after the decision was released Tuesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the Supreme Court’s decision was “bad for our country.”
But he nodded to Kavanaugh’s partial dissent, in which the justice wrote that Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
“But Congress has not yet done so,” Kavanaugh added.
“We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President,” Trump wrote.
The exchange suggests that the political fight over citizenship and “birth tourism” may continue despite the court’s verdict.
Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said the decision “reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the son of Mexican immigrants, said the fight over birthright citizenship was personal.
“While we celebrate this ruling today, we cannot rest,” he said. “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy and the notion of what it means to be American.”
But Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors more restrictions, said the decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, says: “All 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.”
The amendment overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which declared that Black people could not become U.S. citizens.
In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.
In the 19th century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.
In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in the country.
The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”
Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.
But on his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote. And in the future, he said, it would not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visas.
His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.
In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”
By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.
Thomas wrote a 91-page dissent arguing for a limited view of the 14th Amendment.
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power,” he wrote. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors … lacked similar bonds to this country.”
In a separate 39-page dissent, Alito asserted the “court has made a serious mistake.”
The 14th Amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country” but not to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child,” he wrote.
While Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws, he came to office seeking to make major changes through executive orders.
Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney argued the surge of illegal immigration called for a change in the citizenship laws.
“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.
“It’s a new world,” responded Roberts. “It’s the same Constitution.”
Times staff writer Andrea Castillo in Washington contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born in the country are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.
But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.
They said the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to waves of illegal or temporary visitors.
The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.
In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.
In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.
He left after an hour, having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.
Two hours after the decision was released Tuesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the Supreme Court’s decision was “bad for our country.”
But he nodded to Kavanaugh’s partial dissent, in which the justice wrote that Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
“But Congress has not yet done so,” Kavanaugh added.
“We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President,” Trump wrote.
The exchange suggests that the political fight over citizenship and “birth tourism” may continue despite the court’s verdict.
Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said the decision “reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the son of Mexican immigrants, said the fight over birthright citizenship was personal.
“While we celebrate this ruling today, we cannot rest,” he said. “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy and the notion of what it means to be American.”
But Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors more restrictions, said the decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, says: “All 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.”
The amendment overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which declared that Black people could not become U.S. citizens.
In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.
In the 19th century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.
In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in the country.
The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”
Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.
But on his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote. And in the future, he said, it would not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visas.
His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.
In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”
By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.
Thomas wrote a 91-page dissent arguing for a limited view of the 14th Amendment.
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power,” he wrote. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors … lacked similar bonds to this country.”
In a separate 39-page dissent, Alito asserted the “court has made a serious mistake.”
The 14th Amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country” but not to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child,” he wrote.
While Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws, he came to office seeking to make major changes through executive orders.
Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney argued the surge of illegal immigration called for a change in the citizenship laws.
“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.
“It’s a new world,” responded Roberts. “It’s the same Constitution.”
Times staff writer Andrea Castillo in Washington contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born in the country are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.
But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.
They said the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to waves of illegal or temporary visitors.
The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.
In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.
In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.
He left after an hour, having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.
Two hours after the decision was released Tuesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the Supreme Court’s decision was “bad for our country.”
But he nodded to Kavanaugh’s partial dissent, in which the justice wrote that Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
“But Congress has not yet done so,” Kavanaugh added.
“We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President,” Trump wrote.
The exchange suggests that the political fight over citizenship and “birth tourism” may continue despite the court’s verdict.
Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said the decision “reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the son of Mexican immigrants, said the fight over birthright citizenship was personal.
“While we celebrate this ruling today, we cannot rest,” he said. “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy and the notion of what it means to be American.”
But Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors more restrictions, said the decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, says: “All 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.”
The amendment overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which declared that Black people could not become U.S. citizens.
In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.
In the 19th century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.
In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in the country.
The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”
Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.
But on his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote. And in the future, he said, it would not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visas.
His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.
In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”
By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.
Thomas wrote a 91-page dissent arguing for a limited view of the 14th Amendment.
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power,” he wrote. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors … lacked similar bonds to this country.”
In a separate 39-page dissent, Alito asserted the “court has made a serious mistake.”
The 14th Amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country” but not to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child,” he wrote.
While Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws, he came to office seeking to make major changes through executive orders.
Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney argued the surge of illegal immigration called for a change in the citizenship laws.
“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.
“It’s a new world,” responded Roberts. “It’s the same Constitution.”
Times staff writer Andrea Castillo in Washington contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born in the country are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.
But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.
They said the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to waves of illegal or temporary visitors.
The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.
In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.
In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.
He left after an hour, having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.
Two hours after the decision was released Tuesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the Supreme Court’s decision was “bad for our country.”
But he nodded to Kavanaugh’s partial dissent, in which the justice wrote that Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
“But Congress has not yet done so,” Kavanaugh added.
“We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President,” Trump wrote.
The exchange suggests that the political fight over citizenship and “birth tourism” may continue despite the court’s verdict.
Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said the decision “reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the son of Mexican immigrants, said the fight over birthright citizenship was personal.
“While we celebrate this ruling today, we cannot rest,” he said. “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy and the notion of what it means to be American.”
But Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors more restrictions, said the decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, says: “All 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.”
The amendment overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which declared that Black people could not become U.S. citizens.
In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.
In the 19th century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.
In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in the country.
The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”
Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.
But on his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote. And in the future, he said, it would not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visas.
His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.
In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”
By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.
Thomas wrote a 91-page dissent arguing for a limited view of the 14th Amendment.
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power,” he wrote. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors … lacked similar bonds to this country.”
In a separate 39-page dissent, Alito asserted the “court has made a serious mistake.”
The 14th Amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country” but not to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child,” he wrote.
While Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws, he came to office seeking to make major changes through executive orders.
Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney argued the surge of illegal immigration called for a change in the citizenship laws.
“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.
“It’s a new world,” responded Roberts. “It’s the same Constitution.”
Times staff writer Andrea Castillo in Washington contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born in the country are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.
But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.
They said the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to waves of illegal or temporary visitors.
The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.
In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.
In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.
He left after an hour, having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.
Two hours after the decision was released Tuesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the Supreme Court’s decision was “bad for our country.”
But he nodded to Kavanaugh’s partial dissent, in which the justice wrote that Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
“But Congress has not yet done so,” Kavanaugh added.
“We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President,” Trump wrote.
The exchange suggests that the political fight over citizenship and “birth tourism” may continue despite the court’s verdict.
Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said the decision “reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the son of Mexican immigrants, said the fight over birthright citizenship was personal.
“While we celebrate this ruling today, we cannot rest,” he said. “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy and the notion of what it means to be American.”
But Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors more restrictions, said the decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, says: “All 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.”
The amendment overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which declared that Black people could not become U.S. citizens.
In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.
In the 19th century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.
In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in the country.
The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”
Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.
But on his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote. And in the future, he said, it would not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visas.
His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.
In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”
By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.
Thomas wrote a 91-page dissent arguing for a limited view of the 14th Amendment.
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power,” he wrote. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors … lacked similar bonds to this country.”
In a separate 39-page dissent, Alito asserted the “court has made a serious mistake.”
The 14th Amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country” but not to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child,” he wrote.
While Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws, he came to office seeking to make major changes through executive orders.
Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney argued the surge of illegal immigration called for a change in the citizenship laws.
“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.
“It’s a new world,” responded Roberts. “It’s the same Constitution.”
Times staff writer Andrea Castillo in Washington contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born in the country are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.
But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.
They said the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to waves of illegal or temporary visitors.
The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.
In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.
In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.
He left after an hour, having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.
Two hours after the decision was released Tuesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the Supreme Court’s decision was “bad for our country.”
But he nodded to Kavanaugh’s partial dissent, in which the justice wrote that Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
“But Congress has not yet done so,” Kavanaugh added.
“We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President,” Trump wrote.
The exchange suggests that the political fight over citizenship and “birth tourism” may continue despite the court’s verdict.
Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said the decision “reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the son of Mexican immigrants, said the fight over birthright citizenship was personal.
“While we celebrate this ruling today, we cannot rest,” he said. “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy and the notion of what it means to be American.”
But Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors more restrictions, said the decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, says: “All 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.”
The amendment overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which declared that Black people could not become U.S. citizens.
In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.
In the 19th century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.
In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in the country.
The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”
Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.
But on his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote. And in the future, he said, it would not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visas.
His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.
In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”
By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.
Thomas wrote a 91-page dissent arguing for a limited view of the 14th Amendment.
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power,” he wrote. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors … lacked similar bonds to this country.”
In a separate 39-page dissent, Alito asserted the “court has made a serious mistake.”
The 14th Amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country” but not to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child,” he wrote.
While Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws, he came to office seeking to make major changes through executive orders.
Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney argued the surge of illegal immigration called for a change in the citizenship laws.
“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.
“It’s a new world,” responded Roberts. “It’s the same Constitution.”
Times staff writer Andrea Castillo in Washington contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born in the country are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.
But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.
They said the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to waves of illegal or temporary visitors.
The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.
In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.
In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.
He left after an hour, having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.
Two hours after the decision was released Tuesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the Supreme Court’s decision was “bad for our country.”
But he nodded to Kavanaugh’s partial dissent, in which the justice wrote that Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
“But Congress has not yet done so,” Kavanaugh added.
“We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President,” Trump wrote.
The exchange suggests that the political fight over citizenship and “birth tourism” may continue despite the court’s verdict.
Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said the decision “reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the son of Mexican immigrants, said the fight over birthright citizenship was personal.
“While we celebrate this ruling today, we cannot rest,” he said. “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy and the notion of what it means to be American.”
But Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors more restrictions, said the decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, says: “All 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.”
The amendment overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which declared that Black people could not become U.S. citizens.
In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.
In the 19th century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.
In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in the country.
The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”
Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.
But on his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote. And in the future, he said, it would not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visas.
His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.
In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”
By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.
Thomas wrote a 91-page dissent arguing for a limited view of the 14th Amendment.
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power,” he wrote. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors … lacked similar bonds to this country.”
In a separate 39-page dissent, Alito asserted the “court has made a serious mistake.”
The 14th Amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country” but not to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child,” he wrote.
While Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws, he came to office seeking to make major changes through executive orders.
Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney argued the surge of illegal immigration called for a change in the citizenship laws.
“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.
“It’s a new world,” responded Roberts. “It’s the same Constitution.”
Times staff writer Andrea Castillo in Washington contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born in the country are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.
But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.
They said the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to extend citizenship to waves of illegal or temporary visitors.
The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.
In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.
In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.
He left after an hour, having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.
Two hours after the decision was released Tuesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the Supreme Court’s decision was “bad for our country.”
But he nodded to Kavanaugh’s partial dissent, in which the justice wrote that Congress could “enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”
“But Congress has not yet done so,” Kavanaugh added.
“We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President,” Trump wrote.
The exchange suggests that the political fight over citizenship and “birth tourism” may continue despite the court’s verdict.
Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said the decision “reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the son of Mexican immigrants, said the fight over birthright citizenship was personal.
“While we celebrate this ruling today, we cannot rest,” he said. “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy and the notion of what it means to be American.”
But Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors more restrictions, said the decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, says: “All 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.”
The amendment overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, which declared that Black people could not become U.S. citizens.
In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.
In the 19th century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.
In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in the country.
The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”
Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.
But on his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.
“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote. And in the future, he said, it would not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visas.
His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.
In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”
By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.
Thomas wrote a 91-page dissent arguing for a limited view of the 14th Amendment.
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power,” he wrote. “The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors … lacked similar bonds to this country.”
In a separate 39-page dissent, Alito asserted the “court has made a serious mistake.”
The 14th Amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country” but not to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child,” he wrote.
While Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws, he came to office seeking to make major changes through executive orders.
Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney argued the surge of illegal immigration called for a change in the citizenship laws.
“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.
“It’s a new world,” responded Roberts. “It’s the same Constitution.”
Times staff writer Andrea Castillo in Washington contributed to this report.
