Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship, Rejecting Executive Order

Quick Hits

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment grants automatic citizenship to virtually all children born on United States soil (i.e., “birthright citizenship”).
• The ruling affirmed lower court rulings that enjoined an executive order by President Donald Trump, which sought to restrict U.S. citizenship conferred at birth to children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident.
• The ruling preserves the status quo and the long-standing legal precedent of birthright citizenship in the United States.

The ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Jackson, preserves longstanding precedent on birthright citizenship, confirming that “a child born on American soil and subject to American law was made an American citizen.” Employers need not take any action in response to this decision.

The Court held by a majority that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses all persons born on U.S. soil, with only narrow exceptions (such as for children of foreign diplomats). The majority rejected the government’s domicile-based interpretation of the citizenship clause, finding it unsupported by the text, history, and precedent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justices Jackson (joined in part by Justice Sotomayor) and Kavanaugh concurred. Jackson emphasized the Fourteenth Amendment’s broad guarantee of birthright citizenship for all persons born in the U.S., while Kavanaugh said the case should have been decided on statutory grounds, leaving open Congress’s ability to limit birthright citizenship in the future.

Multiple dissenting opinions, led by Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Neil Gorsuch) and joined separately by Justices Samuel Alito and Gorsuch, contend that the Citizenship Clause requires domicile—not mere birth on U.S. soil—and that the majority’s broad ruling “devalues” American citizenship by constitutionalizing a rule most nations have abandoned.

Executive Order Struck Down

The Court upheld lower court rulings that had enjoined President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which was issued on his first day in office on January 20, 2025. That order sought to limit U.S. citizenship conferred at birth (“birthright citizenship”) to children who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident (also known as a green card holder). Multiple lawsuits challenging the executive order’s constitutionality were filed in the subsequent months, resulting in a Supreme Court ruling in a related case (Trump v. CASA, Inc.) that limited the authority of federal district courts to issue nationwide injunctions but did not address the constitutionality of Executive Order 14160.

In summarizing their holding and acknowledging the government’s domicile-based interpretation, the majority noted the Court had “exhaustively canvassed the test and history of the Citizenship Clause” and at no point could it find evidence in the historical record that the congressional ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment “thought themselves to be imposing a domicile limitation.”

In closing its opinion and affirming the decision of the District Court for the District of New Hampshire, the majority noted the “Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended [the promise of citizenship] to ‘every free-born person in this land,’” concluding “[w]e keep that promise today.”

Status of Executive Order 14160

Executive Order 14160 remains enjoined and unenforceable. Consistent with the lower courts that had heard this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order 14160 contradicted the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) July 2025 implementation plan, which outlined how the executive order would have been applied if upheld, has no further legal effect. Citizenship continues to be conferred at birth to all children born in the United States, consistent with long-standing law and policy, with limited exceptions, such as for children born to foreign diplomats.

What This Means for Employers

The ruling preserves the status quo and the long-standing legal precedent of birthright citizenship in the United States. Because the executive order has been blocked by multiple courts since January 2025 and has never taken effect, employers need not take action in response to this decision. However, the legislative landscape may continue to evolve, and employers should remain attentive to potential efforts by Congress to codify statutory restrictions on birthright citizenship.

While no action is required today, the legal and legislative landscape may continue to shift. Employers are encouraged to monitor any future developments, including potential Congressional action or state-level measures, that could affect their nonimmigrant workforce.

Ogletree Deakins’ Immigration Practice Group will continue to monitor developments related to this decision and provide updates on the Immigration blog as additional information becomes available.

This article and more information on how the Trump administration’s actions impact employers can be found on Ogletree Deakins’ Administration Resource Hub.

For more insight into this development and other critical immigration issues facing employers today, please join our Virtual Immigration Insights Symposium on Wednesday, October 7, 2026, from noon to 2:30 p.m. ET. Register here.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts