The Supreme Court narrowly upheld the principle of birthright citizenship in a 5-4 decision, a result that experts view as a precarious defense of a long-settled constitutional tenet. The ruling affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to virtually all individuals born in the United States.
The Fourteenth Amendment states, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Court's majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, reiterated that the amendment's exception for those not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. applies only to a small group, such as the children of foreign diplomats.
This decision, often referred to as Trump v. Barbara, reaffirmed the understanding established in the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. That case held that a man born in the U.S. to Chinese citizens was a U.S. citizen, solidifying the interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction" as meaning individuals bound by U.S. law.
Despite the clear majority opinion, the close 5-4 vote has raised concerns about the stability of this established legal principle. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while ultimately concluding that federal statute prevented the cancellation of citizenship in this instance, suggested that the rise in immigration represented a new circumstance that could alter the Constitution's meaning. Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, advanced a theory that citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment should apply only to children of those "domiciled" in the U.S., not "temporary visitors." This argument, according to analysis, echoes a theory previously advanced by white supremacists in the late 19th century.
Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas's opinion, adding a suggestion that only children born to parents who intend to make their permanent home in the U.S. should be citizens, a distinction also not found in the text of the amendment. This interpretation could exclude children of undocumented immigrants.
The potential for future challenges to birthright citizenship was underscored by the alignment of the court. The majority opinion was joined by Roberts and the three Democratic-appointed justices, along with Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The dissenting votes came from Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and one other.
Experts suggest that the close margin in Trump v. Barbara indicates that the long-standing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is vulnerable to shifts in the Court's composition. The possibility of future appointees altering this interpretation has led to warnings that the stability of other constitutional rights could also be at risk if the court's makeup changes.
This near-miss on such a fundamental aspect of U.S. law has been compared to other significant decisions, including the Court's 2024 ruling on presidential immunity and historical decisions like Korematsu v. United States (1944), which upheld Japanese internment during World War II. The concern is that a single change in the Court's majority could lead to a reevaluation of established legal principles, potentially ushering in a period of significant legal uncertainty.