Trump v. Barbara
The Court holds that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are nonetheless "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and so are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. The Clause incorporates the common law rule of jus soli — citizenship by birth on the soil — subject only to the narrow exceptions recognized at common law, such as the children of foreign ministers. President Trump's Executive Order denying birthright citizenship to such children is therefore inconsistent with the Constitution.
Case background
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14160, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. The Order provides that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present here are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and thus do not qualify for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause or the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which uses the same language. Several parents filed suit, some in the name of their children, arguing that the Executive Order violates both the Fourteenth Amendment and the INA. The District Court agreed, provisionally certified a nationwide class of children who would be denied citizenship by the Order, and preliminarily enjoined the Order’s enforcement. This Court granted certiorari before judgment.
Questions Presented
(1) 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.
Holding
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 Clause mirrors the common law’s criteria for citizenship: a child born on American soil and subject to American law is a citizen, subject only to the narrow exceptions recognized at common law — such as the children of foreign ministers and members of Indian tribes — none of which applies to the children of parents unlawfully or temporarily present. The Court’s precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark confirms this rule, and arguments for limiting birthright citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States find scant support in the text or history of the Clause. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
The Court
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson joined. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined as to the introduction and Part I. Justice Kavanaugh filed an opinion concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch each filed dissenting opinions.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in Trump v. Barbara, written by Justice Roberts.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone, inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be attributed to Justice Roberts. The text being read is the Court’s published majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.