on Tuesday , rejecting President Donald Trump鈥檚 declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily .
The decision, in line with the longstanding judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment, comes on the final day of a Supreme Court term that has centered on Trump鈥檚 expansive claims of presidential power 鈥� and largely ruled in his favor.
In its other Tuesday rulings, the court upheld laws in roughly half the states that from playing on their public school and college sport teams and in federal elections.
Here’s the latest:
Justice Thomas: 鈥楥itizenship Clause was enacted for people who were born in this country and called it home鈥�
Thomas, who wrote the main dissent, disagreed with the majority鈥檚 opinion on birthright citizenship.
The basis of his argument, among other things, is that the court ignored evidence from Reconstruction debates that suggested citizenship depended on a deeper relationship to the country.
鈥淭he Citizenship Clause was enacted for people who were born in this country and called it home. It was enacted for freed slaves such as Dred Scott, who had 鈥榓 domicile鈥� here and therefore were entitled to sue as citizens,鈥� Thomas wrote in his dissent, concluding that Reconstruction was a targeted remedy for freed slaves to restore citizenship to a wrongfully excluded group.
鈻�
Supreme Court chief justice: 鈥榃e break no new ground today鈥�
Much of Chief Justice John Roberts鈥� opinion was a history lesson on English common law, in which he concluded that birthright citizenship has always depended primarily on birthplace 鈥� not on parents鈥� immigration status or domicile.
鈥淐itizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights 鈥� to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to 鈥榚very free-born person in this land,鈥欌�� Roberts wrote for the court, citing congressional debate over the amendment, 鈥淲e keep that promise today.鈥�
鈥淲e break no new ground today,鈥� Roberts said on the bench as he read the court鈥檚 majority opinion.
鈻�
Justice Department instructs prosecutors to crack down on 鈥榖irth tourism鈥� schemes
In a memo circulated hours after the Supreme Court鈥檚 ruling upholding , the deputy attorney general鈥檚 office directed prosecutors to 鈥減rioritize the investigation and prosecution鈥� of fraudulent 鈥渂irth tourism鈥� schemes.
In seeking to end birthright citizenship, the Trump administration pointed to 鈥渂irth tourism鈥� networks that arrange for non-U.S. citizens to come to the country solely to give birth.
The memo says that while many of such cases are charged as visa fraud, prosecutors should also consider whether other laws apply, including wire fraud, money laundering and aggravated identity theft.
鈥淭ogether, we will bring illegal birth tourism to an end and those responsible to justice,鈥� the memo says.
鈥楢 very narrow decision鈥�
A lawyer representing trans female athletes in pending litigation in multiple states described the Supreme Court鈥檚 ruling that upheld from playing on school athletic teams as 鈥渁 very narrow decision.鈥�
Susan Cirilli, whose clients include former , reiterated that there remains no federal law in the country that prohibits transgender women from participating in sports and argues that President Trump鈥檚 executive order cannot supersede state law.
Venezuelan woman who is part of another birthright lawsuit received court decision in tears
鈥淚 feel a great sense of tranquility,鈥� said the woman, one of the five plaintiffs in the lawsuit at the Maryland district court. 鈥淚t is a triumph for our children; I fought hard for this day,鈥� said the asylum seeker.
The woman, who asked not to be identified from fear of being detained, said she filed the lawsuit Jan. 21, 2025, the day after President Trump announced his executive order declaring that children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens. She was pregnant with her first child, who was born in August 2025.
As an asylum seeker, she did not believe she could request the Venezuelan citizenship for the baby and wondered what citizenship the child would have.
鈥淭here was a lot of uncertainty and fear. I wondered: if my son wasn鈥檛 going to be from here, then where would he be from?鈥� said the woman, who was a doctor in her country and arrived to the U.S. in 2019 after receiving death threats in Venezuela.
On Tuesday, she said she felt a 鈥渟ea of emotions鈥� when she saw the news on TV.
ACLU celebrates the Supreme Court鈥檚 birthright citizenship ruling
鈥淭his should have been a unanimous decision,鈥� attorney Cody Wofsy, deputy director at the ACLU Immigrants鈥� Rights Project, told reporters after the decision was announced. 鈥淭he text of the Constitution is clear, the history is clear, and the precedent is clear.鈥�
鈥淭hat said, regardless of what the vote count may have been, this is a rejection of the Trump administration鈥檚 extreme attempts to rewrite the Constitution and to exclude entire portions of American-born children from our country.鈥�
Birthright could become a powerful wedge issue in US politics, critic of decision says
鈥淭he president was never going to win, in the sense that his executive order was going to be overturned,鈥� said Mark Krikorian, the director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank favoring restrictive immigration policies. 鈥淭he question was if the Supreme Court would accept the ACLU鈥檚 interpretation of the 14th Amendment.鈥�
The ruling 鈥渃onstitutionalized the question鈥� of birthright citizenship, he said, requiring changes through a constitutional amendment.
That, he argued, is highly unlikely: 鈥淐ongress can鈥檛 rename post offices, let alone do anything else.鈥�
But, he said, birthright could now become a powerful political wedge issue, similar to the court鈥檚 1973 abortion ruling, which was overturned in 2022.
鈥淚t鈥檒l distort our politics the way Roe vs. Wade did in energizing a political movement,鈥� he said.
Could pregnancy now be a question on visa application?
Mark Krikorian, a prominent Washington voice favoring restrictive immigration policies, said he expects the ruling to result in new U.S. visa applications, with potential visitors being asked if they are pregnant.
鈥淚t鈥檚 something that visa officers are often reluctant to ask about 鈥� it鈥檚 awkward,鈥� said Krikorian, the director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
鈥淏ut if it鈥檚 on the application then you have the answers, and if you lie you鈥檝e committed a felony,鈥� he said.
The Trump administration says birthright citizenship has created what it calls a birth tourism industry.
鈥淚t is unacceptable for foreign parents to use a U.S. tourist visa for the primary purpose of giving birth in the United States to obtain citizenship for the child,鈥� the State Department said in a post on X. 鈥淭hose who abuse our immigration system through birth tourism may be ineligible for future visas or travel to the United States.鈥�
Justice Thomas says the majority misunderstands the 14th amendment
He insists the majority opinion perpetuates a misunderstanding and misapplication of the 14th amendment.
The citizenship clause and related Reconstruction statutes granted citizenship 鈥渢o persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race,鈥� he wrote. But 鈥渘either guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States.鈥�
He continued: 鈥淏lacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority.鈥�
That highlights the argument over what it means to be 鈥渟ubject to the jurisdiction鈥� of the U.S.
The majority holds that, with exceptions like foreign diplomats, being on U.S. soil makes a person subject to U.S. laws. Thomas and dissenters reason that no one who is separately subject to another foreign government should be considered 鈥渟ubject to the jurisdiction鈥� of the U.S., at least when conferring citizenship.
Justice Jackson takes issue with Thomas in citizenship reasoning
Justice Clarence Thomas鈥� dissent in the birthright case argued the 14th amendment鈥檚 citizenship clause applied only to formerly enslaved people and not more broadly.
That prompted Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to pen a concurrence to Roberts鈥� majority opinion.
鈥淒espite his longstanding endorsement of a 鈥榗olorblind鈥� Constitution, Justice Thomas now surprisingly suggests that the Citizenship Clause was a race-conscious remedial measure, relating only to 鈥榝reed slaves such as Dred Scott,鈥欌�� she wrote, calling that a 鈥渘arrow vision鈥� of Reconstruction鈥檚 intended expansion of democracy.
鈥淭his alternative account pitches Black Americans against immigrants when the advocates who promoted the Fourteenth Amendment did no such thing,鈥� Jackson wrote. 鈥淔reed Blacks fought for the shared humanity of all people.鈥�
Jackson is the first Black woman to sit on the Supreme Court. Thomas is the second Black man, succeeding Thurgood Marshall, who argued the Brown v. Board case that struck down segregated schools.
Trump says Congress should end birthright citizenship and calls court ruling 鈥榯oo bad鈥�
The president said the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision upholding that anyone born in the United States automatically becomes an American citizen was 鈥渢oo bad for our Country,鈥� but that Congress could 鈥渆asily鈥� address it with legislation.
Trump declared that 鈥淣o long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary!鈥�
But the Supreme Court鈥檚 ruling Tuesday makes it clear that it would be necessary to amend the Constitution. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the opinion for the court, pointed to the Fourteenth Amendment in the Constitution in ruling that anyone born in the country, with very limited exceptions, is a citizen.
Justice Department reacts to the ruling on birthright citizenship
The Justice Department said in a statement that it鈥檚 鈥渃ommitted to tackling illegal birth tourism schemes by working diligently with U.S. Attorneys across the country to uphold the law.鈥�
鈥淎ctors seeking to exploit loopholes to obtain automatic citizenship for their children pose a national security threat and will be brought to justice,鈥� the department said in a post on X.
Dred Scott case featured in the justices鈥� birthright citizenship writings
U.S. Supreme Court justices have long distanced themselves from the pre-Civil War decision that declared Black people 鈥� enslaved and free 鈥� were not U.S. citizens.
The 1857 Dred Scott case was featured again Tuesday, being mentioned 48 times in 194 pages of the birthright citizenship opinion, concurrences and dissents.
Roberts鈥� majority opinion explained how U.S. birthright citizenship originates with English common law: Anyone born in the monarch鈥檚 realm was considered a 鈥渘atural-born subject.鈥�
The 鈥渙dious鈥� Scott case, Roberts said, deviated from that once-accepted understanding and 鈥渨as met with shock.鈥�
In response, he detailed, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment鈥檚 citizenship clause restored common law understanding, with lawmakers making clear they were explicitly rebuking the Scott decision.
Yet, Roberts wrote, 鈥渢he Government and the principal dissent propose a return to its core tenet,鈥� that 鈥渇or certain people, being born on American soil will not suffice to confer citizenship.鈥�
Supreme Court denies report that Justice Samuel Alito is retiring
The Supreme Court鈥檚 public information office is denying a published report, since retracted, that the court announced Alito鈥檚 retirement Tuesday.
The unusual statement followed a story from NPR saying the court had announced that Alito was stepping down. NPR pulled the story a short time later. Chief Justice John Roberts announced the retirement of several court employees Tuesday, as he customarily does after the court鈥檚 final opinions are out. Alito was not among them.
Speculation had swirled about the justice鈥檚 future plans earlier this year, but Fox 91欧美激情 and CBS reported this spring that he planned to remain on the bench.
NPR鈥檚 editor-in-chief released a statement saying the story had been incorrectly reported and that correspondent Nina Totenberg would appear on 鈥淎ll Things Considered鈥� Tuesday afternoon to explain what had happened.
Court will consider striking down assault weapons bans in Connecticut and the Chicago-area
A that has will consider whether bans on semiautomatic rifles, often called assault weapons, violate the Second Amendment.
The justices said Tuesday they will take up appeals asking the court to strike down bans on and similar semiautomatic firearms in the Chicago area and Connecticut.
Similar laws are in place in about a dozen states, covering major cities like New York, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Congress allowed a national assault weapons ban to expire in 2004, but have supported renewing it in response to a series of and states have continued to pass their own laws.
The cases are the latest high-profile disputes over guns to reach the court since its conservative majority handed down in 2022 that expanded Second Amendment rights and spawned around the country.
The case is expected to be heard in the fall.
鈻�
More reactions to the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision on campaign spending
The conservative-leaning Institute for Free Speech hailed the decision as 鈥渁 landmark victory for the First Amendment.鈥�
鈥淢ore than half the states have operated for years without restricting coordinated party expenditures, and there is no evidence of the corruption the federal government fears,鈥� institute senior attorney Brett Nolan said. 鈥淭he Court corrected a two-decade-old mistake.鈥�
Meanwhile, Jacquelyn Lopez and Rachel Jacobs, partners in the Elias Law Group, which represents Democrats in voting rights cases and election contests, said the decision 鈥渘eedlessly鈥� destroyed 鈥渁 long-standing pillar鈥� of federal campaign finance laws.
However, they also said Republicans have 鈥減ushed the boundaries鈥� of the limits to help weak candidates. They said the Elias Law Group had anticipated the outcome for months.
鈥淚n the long run, Democratic campaigns will benefit from the level playing field this ruling provides,鈥� they said. 鈥淣ow, both parties are free to offer unlimited support to their candidates, not just the party willing to ignore the law to do so.鈥�
From a descendant of the man at the center of the 1898 birthright citizenship ruling
Norman Wong, the great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark, the Chinese American cook at the center of the landmark 1898 Supreme Court decision establishing birthright citizenship, applauded Tuesday鈥檚 ruling.
鈥淢y great grandfather, Wong Kim Ark, never set out to become a symbol. He was one man, only a cook, and yet he stood up for what was right, and I believe that it has made a difference,鈥� Wong said in a statement. 鈥淎s a result, he stood up for the rights of all of us Americans 鈥� it just so happens that I am related to him. Today鈥檚 ruling shows that his victory remains as important now as it was in 1898.鈥�
鈥楤y the grace of God, the president does not manage to do everything he wants鈥�
For a Mexican mother with six children born in the United States 鈥� ranging in age from 18 years to 18 months 鈥� the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision brought happiness.
鈥淚 am happy for our children,鈥� the 38-year-old woman said in a telephone interview. 鈥淚 am happy because they don鈥檛 face any risk like we do.鈥�
The woman, who asked not to be identified for fear of being detained and deported, crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in 2007 in search of a better life. She has not applied for asylum or any other immigration status.
She works at a plant nursery in South Florida, where her children attend school.
The woman said one of her children called her as soon as he found out about the decision to share his joy with her.
鈥淏y the grace of God, the president does not manage to do everything he wants,鈥� the mother said. 鈥淚 was confident that, with God鈥檚 help, he would not succeed.鈥�
Birthright citizenship survived racist eras, and now Trump, Global Refuge leader says
The head of Global Refuge said the Supreme Court averted a catastrophe with its 6-3 opinion upholding the 14th Amendment and rejecting the Trump administration鈥檚 attempt to overturn a Reconstruction era amendment.
鈥淏irthright citizenship survived the Chinese Exclusion Act, Jim Crow, and today, it survived an executive order that would have essentially turned the maternity ward into a customs checkpoint,鈥� said Krish O鈥橫ara Vignarajah, President and CEO of Global Refugee.
鈥淭he Justices rightly recognized that the U.S. Constitution is clear and unambiguous: if you are born in this country and subject to its jurisdiction, you are a citizen of this country,鈥� she said. Vignarajah said a different outcome would have denied citizenship to more than 250,000 children born in the U.S. each year.
鈥淭his was a constitutional stress test.鈥�
Trump says Republicans won 鈥榖ig鈥� on Supreme Court鈥檚 party spending ruling
The president applauded a Supreme Court ruling that struck down a federal election law and made it easier for major donors to avoid caps on individual contributions to candidates by going through the party.
鈥淎 BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS and, more importantly, The First Amendment!鈥� Trump posted on social media.
House Speaker Mike Johnson 鈥榲ery disappointed鈥� over birthright citizenship ruling
The Republican leader鈥檚 news conference was interrupted by the ruling as reporters instantly sought a real-time reaction.
鈥淥h dear,鈥� Johnson said as a reporter read out the decision.
Johnson said he believes it will subject the country to 鈥渟erious challenges going forward and we鈥檒l have to deal with that.鈥�
Johnson, who has worked as a constitutional lawyer primarily on religious issues, said the 14th Amendment is being abused by people who are coming to the U.S. to have children in a 鈥渂irthing tourism trend.鈥� It鈥檚 not illegal but is a practice the Trump administration has tried to reduce.
Copyright © 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.
