The Supreme Court said in an opinion issued Tuesday that children born in the United States are citizens under the 14th Amendment.
Read more Supreme Court says states can restrict transgender athletes in girls’ sports
“Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause,” the opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, said.
Roberts was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in part and dissented in part.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito filed dissenting opinions.
Case background
On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order challenging the long-established interpretation of the U.S. Constitution by eliminating citizenship for children born to parents who are in the U.S. temporarily or without legal status.
Trump, through his order, is seeking to reinterpret the constitutional language that gives citizenship to almost every child who is born in the United States.
His order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” sparked concern among expecting mothers, immigration advocates and constitutionalists, but was supported by those who believe the constitutional right has been applied too broadly. The order also made it unclear what it could mean for those who had already been granted citizenship under the right.
The case was partially presented to the Supreme Court during last year’s term, but the justices ultimately ruled on a the matter of nationwide injunctions and declined to take up the birthright issue.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case earlier this year. Trump made a historic move as the first sitting U.S. president to attend an oral argument session, proving how important the issue is to him.
The Constitution states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Read more This Utah town is watching its mountain and way of life burn
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in his argument before the justices that the federal government’s interpretation of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means lawful, permanent allegiance to the U.S., which means children born to temporary visitors or immigrants living in the country illegally would not automatically qualify for citizenship since their parents are not domiciled residents, not permanent residents and don’t hold allegiance to the laws of the U.S.
Sauer also leaned on the fact that the U.S. is among a small handful of countries that allows birthright citizenship. “We’re in a new world now,” Suaer said, noting that the framers of the 14th Amendment couldn’t have imagined living in a world with 8 billion people who are “one plane ride away from having a child who is a U.S. citizen.”
The government’s argument was pushed back upon by both the court’s liberal justices and some of its more conservative justices. “It’s a new world,” Chief Justice John Roberts said to Sauer, “It’s the same Constitution.”
The American Civil Liberties Union argued against the government and national legal director Cecillia Wang leaned on the 127-year-old precedent in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who were ineligible to become U.S. citizens due to immigration law at the time, visited China and was denied reentry to the U.S.
The Supreme Court decided in a 6-2 decision that birth on U.S. soil automatically conferred citizenship, regardless of the person’s parents.
Questions from the justices showed skepticism of the government’s argument, particularly since Sauer said they were not attempting to overturn the Wong ruling, but instead reinterpret it or narrow it down.
Wang, on behalf of the ALCU, capitalized on the fact that the government doesn’t want to overturn the precedent, calling it a “fatal concession.” She also highlighted the humanitarian argument of keeping the long-standing right, saying that it’s contributed to the “growth and thriving” of the country.
Read more Opinion: Why I started Fidelity Month
This story will be updated.