Kumar Bahukhandi
However, the Court’s majority firmly rejected this reinterpretation, ruling that the order directly violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” The ruling preserves more than a century of legal precedent. — AP
The judgment brought relief to thousands of families, particularly Indians living in the US on work visas such as H-1B and student visas
Washington: The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born in the country to parents who were either in the US unlawfully or on a temporary visas.
In a 6-3 judgment, the court reaffirmed that such children were citizens at birth under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. It may be noted that Trump has personally attended an early hearing of the case.
The judgment brought relief to thousands of families, particularly Indians living in the US on work visas such as H-1B and student visas, who had feared uncertainty over the citizenship status of their future children.
Ramesh Reddy, IT professional from Hyderabad working in Dallas, said, “This judgment protects families and upholds citizenship rights. We contribute to the country and follow every rule. It is reassuring to know that our children will continue to receive the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.”
Sravani Edulla, H-1B holder living in Seattle, told Deccan Chronicle, “Many young couples in our community were anxious about their future. The Supreme Court has removed that fear and upheld a principle that has existed for generations.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said: “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.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice John Roberts, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred with the judgement, according to news agency reports, while Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
The executive order, signed by President Trump in January of 2025, denied automatic citizenship to children born in the US if neither parent was a US citizen or a lawful permanent resident. The policy was immediately challenged by several states, immigrant rights groups and civil liberties organisations, and had remained blocked while the legal battle continued.
The Supreme Court’s latest decision has now confirmed the long-standing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which has been in place for more than a century following the landmark 1898 ‘United States v. Wong Kim Ark’ ruling.
The judges relied on a long-settled understanding of the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, and more recent federal laws in ruling that anyone born in the country, with very limited exceptions, is a citizen, the Associated Press (AP) reported. “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights-to freely participate in our political community.
The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to every free-born person in this land,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “We keep that promise today.”
Three conservative justices would have allowed the restrictions to take effect, the news agency said. “The court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a 91-page dissent, more than three times as long as Justice Roberts’ majority opinion.
“In doing so, the court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.” Trump’s restrictions had earlier been blocked by several lower courts and had not taken effect anywhere in the US. During arguments in April, both conservative and liberal justices questioned the order’s legality in a momentous case that was magnified by Trump’s unprecedented attendance in the courtroom.
The case framed another test of Trump’s assertions of executive power that defied long-standing precedent for a court with a conservative majority and a robust view of presidential power that has largely ruled in his favour. In the notable exceptions when the court has not, Trump has responded with starkly personal criticisms of the justices. The justices ruled on Trump’s appeal of a lower-court ruling from New Hampshire that struck down the citizenship restrictions.
The birthright citizenship order, which Trump signed on the first day of his second term, is part of his administration’s broad immigration crackdown. AP reported that the birthright citizenship case was the first Trump immigration-related policy to reach the court for a final ruling. The justices previously struck down global tariffs Trump had imposed under an emergency powers law that had never been used that way.
Trump’s order would have upended widely held views that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born in the US, excluding only the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force. The amendment was intended to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship, though the Citizenship Clause was written more broadly.
“All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” it read, according to the AP report.
( Source-AP )
