Four children playing together, illustrative image on birthright citizenship in the United States. Credits: Cade Martin, Dawn Arlotta, USCDCP / Pixnio.
The Supreme Court of the United States struck down, on Tuesday, June 30, 2026, the decree by which Donald Trump sought to restrict birthright citizenship. In the case Trump v. Barbara, the justices confirmed a central principle. These children born in the United States are citizens at birth under the 14th Amendment.
A Presidential Promise Bumped Up Against The 14th Amendment
The decision, issued by six votes to three, closes the path chosen by the White House from Donald Trump’s second term. Signed on January 20, 2025, Presidential Decree 14160 was titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. It ordered federal agencies to no longer automatically recognize the citizenship of certain children born in the United States. The measure targeted those whose parents were neither U.S. citizens nor permanent residents.
In its opinion of June 30, the Supreme Court instead holds that these children are indeed “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. That phrase is at the heart of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. The majority opinion, written by John Roberts, relies on the history of jus soli. It also invokes the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark, issued in 1898.
The core of the reasoning rests on a simple institutional limit. A president can direct the administration’s actions, but he cannot, by decree, redefine a citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution. For the Court, exceptions to birthright citizenship remain narrow. They concern, in particular, children of foreign diplomats or situations where the United States does not exercise sovereignty. They do not cover children of undocumented parents or holders of temporary visas.
What Donald Trump’s Decree Targeted
The White House text did not merely seek to open a symbolic debate. It instructed four agencies to refuse documents recognizing U.S. citizenship for children falling into the targeted categories. This affected the State Department, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Social Security Administration. In practice, it could have affected decisive administrative acts: passports, certificates of citizenship, Social Security numbers, and access to certain federal benefits.
The measure was to apply to children born more than thirty days after the decree’s signing. It had, however, been blocked by several federal courts. In June 2025, the decision Trump v. CASA had limited the use of nationwide injunctions. It did not decide the merits of jus soli in the United States. The plaintiff organizations then filed a class action to protect the children concerned nationwide.
The NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which participated in the litigation with the ACLU and other organizations, notes that the case Barbara v. Trump was filed in June 2025 after that procedural sequence. This source is a party to the record. It nevertheless clarifies the plaintiffs’ concrete stake. They sought to prevent a category of children born in the United States from losing citizenship at birth.
A Conservative Majority, But Divided
The opinion does not read like a unanimous decision from a placid Court. According to the decision and the accounts published after the hearing, John Roberts was joined by the three liberal justices. Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson voted with him, as did conservative Amy Coney Barrett. Brett Kavanaugh voted to block the decree, but via a narrower rationale. He believes the text violates current federal law, without fully aligning with the majority’s constitutional reasoning.
The three other conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, expressed their disagreement. This split explains the length of the opinion, nearly two hundred pages. It also explains the intensity of the debate around the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.” For the Trump administration, that phrase allowed excluding children whose parents lack a permanent tie to the United States. For the majority, the history of the 14th Amendment leads to the opposite conclusion.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, after the Civil War. It aimed to overturn the legacy of Dred Scott, which had denied Black people the protection of U.S. citizenship. In 1898, in Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court confirmed another principle. A child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, who were barred from naturalization at the time, was a U.S. citizen from birth. It is this continuity that the Trump v. Barbara decision restores to the center of American constitutional law.
Does Jus Soli Exist In The USA?
Yes, but it rests on a precise constitutional formulation. American jus soli means that a person born on U.S. territory is, in principle, a U.S. citizen from birth. They must be subject to the country’s jurisdiction. This condition excludes limited cases, notably children of foreign diplomats. It does not target children of parents without legal status or present on a temporary visa, according to the Supreme Court.
This clarification matters for the French public debate. Jus soli in the United States is not a mere immigration policy changeable by memo or decree. It is enshrined in the Constitution, then codified by federal law. The decision thus recalls that a decree is not enough to undo a constitutional status. The political debate exists, but it moves within a more constrained legal framework.
A Decision First And Foremost Constitutional
The decision is a major setback for Donald Trump. Restricting birthright citizenship was one of his strongest immigration promises. But the opinion is first understood as an institutional reminder. A presidential promise is not enough to change a citizenship that the Court ties to the text and history of the 14th Amendment.
The political scope of the ruling remains real, but it does not change the legal core of the case. The Court does not resolve a partisan preference on immigration; it sets the limit of the executive power in the face of a constitutional guarantee. Any new initiative will therefore have to reckon with this framework, and not only with a power struggle in Congress.
For the families concerned, the immediate effect is clearer. Lower courts had already prevented the decree from taking effect. The Supreme Court now confirms the merits: the White House could not strip these children of citizenship by executive action. The political battle can continue. But the framework set on Tuesday is clear: in the United States, birthright citizenship is not rewritten from the Oval Office.