SCOTUS Preserves Birthright Citizenship, Providing Certainty for Employees and Their Families

Takeaways

• The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration status
• The Court held that Executive Order (EO) 14160, which sought to deny citizenship at birth to certain children born to parents who were unlawfully present or present in temporary immigration statuses, was unconstitutional  
• The decision reaffirms more than a century of constitutional precedent interpreting the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
• The ruling does not change employers’ existing obligations under Form I-9, E-Verify or other federal employment eligibility verification requirements

Related Links

• SCOTUS: Trump v. Barbara decision
• EO 14160: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship

Article

In today’s landmark Trump v. Barbara decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that children born in the United States are citizens at birth regardless of whether their parents are present in the country unlawfully or temporarily. The Court concluded that Executive Order 14160 violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore cannot be enforced.

The decision resolves one of the most significant constitutional challenges to executive immigration authority in recent years and preserves the longstanding understanding of birthright citizenship in the United States. Although the decision has been broadly anticipated for its potential impact, today’s ruling preserves existing citizenship eligibility, preventing any changes to existing employment verification practices.

Background

The Trump Administration issued EO 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” on Jan. 20, 2025. The EO sought to deny U.S. citizenship at birth to certain children born in the United States on or after Feb. 19, 2025, if, at the time of birth, the child’s mother was either unlawfully present or lawfully present on a temporary basis and the child’s father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. The EO directed federal agencies not to recognize U.S. citizenship for these covered children.

EO 14160 represented a significant departure from more than a century of constitutional interpretation and executive branch practice regarding birthright citizenship. States, advocacy organizations and affected individuals promptly challenged the EO, and multiple federal district courts entered nationwide preliminary injunctions preventing the order from taking effect before the government eventually sought Supreme Court review.

The Court’s Decision

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. concluded that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees U.S. citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

The Court explained that the constitutional phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” refers to individuals who are subject to the sovereign authority of the United States while within its territory, rather than to their parents’ immigration status or political allegiance. The Court rejected the government’s argument that the phrase excludes children born to parents who lack lawful immigration status or who are present temporarily. Looking to the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court concluded that Congress adopted the Citizenship Clause against the backdrop of the English common law principle of jus soli — citizenship based on place of birth — which had long governed citizenship at birth.

The Court also relied heavily on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, describing that decision as confirming that the Fourteenth Amendment “constitutionalized the longstanding common-law rule of citizenship by birth within the sovereign’s territory,” subject only to the narrow historical exceptions recognized at common law, such as children born to foreign diplomats or enemy forces occupying U.S. territory.

Rejecting the government’s arguments, the Court concluded that neither unlawful presence nor temporary lawful status places parents — or their U.S.-born children — outside the scope of the Citizenship Clause. According to the Court, history, constitutional text and longstanding precedent provide no basis for distinguishing between children born to parents based on their immigration status.

Because EO 14160 conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship at birth, the Court held that the EO is unconstitutional.

Practical Implications

The Court’s decision resolves an important constitutional question while leaving existing immigration and employment verification requirements unchanged.

Because EO 14160 applied prospectively to certain children born on or after Feb. 19, 2025, and never took effect while litigation was pending, the decision does not require employers to modify existing practices.

Looking Ahead

The decision preserves the longstanding constitutional understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than a century and removes uncertainty surrounding the legal status of children who would have been affected by EO 14160.

Although the ruling resolves one of the Administration’s most significant constitutional immigration initiatives, litigation over other immigration-related executive actions is expected to continue. Employers should continue monitoring developments affecting employment-based immigration programs, work authorization and immigration compliance obligations.