Trump v. Barbara

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 5 Dec 2025

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that those "born * * * in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," are U.S. citizens. U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. The Clause was adopted to confer citizenship on the newly freed slaves and their children, not on the children of aliens temporarily visiting the United States or of illegal aliens. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14,160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, which restores the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause and provides, on a prospective basis only, that children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth. The Citizenship Order directs federal agencies not to issue or accept citizenship documents for such children born more than 30 days after the Order's effective date. The question presented is whether the Executive Order complies on its face with the Citizenship Clause and with 8 U.S.C. 1401(a), which codifies that Clause.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case asked whether children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court that they are. The Court said the Citizenship Clause must be read in light of English common law and the history leading up to the Amendment, which treated birth on the soil and being subject to the sovereign’s power as enough for citizenship, with only narrow exceptions such as children of foreign ministers. The Court relied on Dred Scott’s repudiation and on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, explaining that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” means being under the United States’ power to govern, not a domicile requirement. It therefore upheld the lower court’s ruling against the Executive Order that denied citizenship to such children.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Thomas wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Gorsuch. He argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” meant complete jurisdiction and that the majority wrongly treated children of unlawful or temporary entrants as citizens. He contended that the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment used language tied to domicile and foreign power, and that the majority’s reading misread the historical record and Wong Kim Ark. Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch also filed dissenting opinions.