Questions of citizenship by birth are addressed differently across constitutional democracies, reflecting each country’s constitutional framework, legislative choices, and historical experience. In the United States, the principle of birthright citizenship has long been derived from the Fourteenth Amendment, but its scope has remained the subject of legal and constitutional debate.
The recent judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court examines the meaning of the Citizenship Clause and the extent to which birthright citizenship can be altered through executive action. While the Court reaffirmed the existing constitutional position, the differing opinions provide contrasting interpretations of constitutional text, history, and precedent.
This note summarises the Court’s decision, the reasoning of the majority and dissenting opinions, and the broader constitutional implications of the ruling.
I. Key Highlights
In the landmark case Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Barbara et al., the Supreme Court of the United States addressed a profound constitutional question that is whether the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country.
The case arose after President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14160, which stated that such children are not “subject to the jurisdiction“ of the United States and are thus excluded from birthright citizenship. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s injunction, declaring the Executive Order unconstitutional and holding that the Fourteenth Amendment absolutely guarantees citizenship to these children at birth..
The Court has held that children born on American soil to parents temporarily or unlawfully present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Citizenship Clause.
The majority explicitly highlighted that rule of jus soli applied regardless of how “momentary and uncertain” the presence of the mother or child was.
Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.
Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment but dissented in part, agreeing that the Executive Order was illegal, but strictly on statutory grounds rather than constitutional ones.
II. Key Arguments And Observations
Majority Opinion:
(Opinion(s) by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson)
The majority opinion holds that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to almost all children born on U.S. soil, including those whose parents are unlawfully or only temporarily present, and it invalidates President Trump’s 2025 executive order attempting to deny such citizenship.
Chief Justice Roberts grounded the majority’s ruling in historical continuity, traditional common law, and a textualist reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts argued that the Citizenship Clause must be understood through the lens of English common law, specifically jus soli (the right of the soil).
The core textual battlefield of the case centers on the Fourteenth Amendment’s phrase: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...”. The Executive branch argued that “subject to the jurisdiction” required a deeper, structural political allegiance, which temporary visitors and undocumented immigrants cannot possess due to their foreign allegiances. Chief Justice Roberts countered this view using contemporary dictionaries and foundational Supreme Court precedents.
Citing Noah Webster’s 1865 American Dictionary of the English Language and Worcester’s 1860 dictionary, the majority defined "jurisdiction" in its ordinary sovereign sense: the full power of governing or legislating over those within a territory. To be "subject to" that jurisdiction simply means to be "living under" that sovereign dominion and amenable to its civil and criminal laws.
Chief Justice Roberts noted that the text of the amendment contains no conditional vocabulary like “lawful,” “temporary,” “mother,” or “father”. This structural choice proves that the ratifiers knew how to include a residency requirement when they wanted to, and deliberately chose to omit it from the definition of national birthright citizenship.
A structural pillar of Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion is the constitutional purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority detailed how Southern slave states had previously abandoned the common law of jus soli in favor of a race- and bloodline-based framework (jus sanguinis) to deny citizenship to Black Americans. This regional practice was federalized in the “odious decision” of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), where Chief Justice Taney held that bloodline, not soil, determined national citizenship.
Having established the Common Law baseline, the Court turns to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and asserts that it was meant to “finish” what the Civil Rights Act began to permanently entrench birthright citizenship and repudiate Dred Scott beyond legislative repeal.
Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s early decision in Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, which recognised that a sovereign nation has exclusive authority over persons and property within its territory subject to limited exceptions, and jurisdiction is defined as the plenary power to govern within a territory. Because temporary visitors and undocumented immigrants must obey U.S. laws, they are fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The only narrow exceptions recognized by history are children of foreign diplomats, invading armies, or sovereign native tribes.
Following the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress set out to permanently overturn Dred Scott. They did so first via the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and then permanently via the Fourteenth Amendment to place the “great question of citizenship” entirely beyond the reach of shifting legislative majorities or presidential whims.
The majority held that the language of the Citizenship Clause was adopted to reflect the common law principles governing citizenship., intentionally embedding jus soli into the constitutional bedrock to prevent future administrations from resurrecting bloodline or lineage tests for citizenship
The majority treated United States v. Wong Kim Ark as the definitive judicial confirmation of this territorial rule. Justice Roberts rejected the Government’s attempts to narrow Wong Kim Ark by pointing out that the case routinely referenced the domicile of Wong’s parents.
The majority asserted that United States v. Wong Kim Ark firmly established that birthright citizenship applies to the children of permanent residents and temporary visitors alike.
Justice Jackson, while rendering concurring opinion, offered an originalist perspective focused on the broader social framework of the Reconstruction era. Justice Jackson in some sense pushed back against Justice Thomas’s characterization of the Fourteenth Amendment as a narrow remedy meant solely for freed slaves. She argued that the Reconstruction Amendments were designed as a sweeping, universal “anti-caste, anti-subordination reset” for American society.
Justice Jackson contextualized the legislative history, explaining that the Framers deliberately adopted broad, race-neutral language to ensure that no marginalized group—including immigrant communities heavily targeted in the nineteenth century, such as the Chinese and Romani could be relegated to an inferior legal status.
The majority addressed the 19th century State Department letters and academic treatises (such as Francis Wharton’s) cited by Justice Thomas to show that the executive branch had occasionally denied passports to children born to transient parents. Roberts declared that these post enactment deviations cannot overrule the clear public meaning of the text at the time of ratification. He characterized those late-19th-century theories as a “fundamentally revisionist” product of the anti-Chinese Exclusion era, which Wong Kim Ark ultimately and definitively rejected.
Finally, the majority highlighted the practical absurdity of a domicile-based standard. The Reconstruction Congress was determined to settle the question of citizenship “once and forever” to build a stable post-war society. If birthright citizenship depended on a parent’s “domicile”,, a legally complex concept that depends heavily on proving a subjective intent to remain indefinitely, it would introduce massive legal uncertainty and make citizenship administrative chaos.
Concurring in Judgment / Dissenting in Part (Justice Kavanaugh)
Justice Kavanaugh carved out a distinct middle ground by prioritizing statutory law over constitutional absolute rules. Kavanaugh agreed that the Executive Order must be struck down because it directly violates 8 U.S.C. §1401(a), the governing immigration statute passed by Congress which mirrors the Citizenship Clause. Because Congress hasn’t authorized this change, the executive branch cannot unilaterally enact it.
However, Kavanaugh broke from the majority by asserting that the Wong Kim Ark framework is not a “permanently closed set”. He suggested that if Congress were to pass a statute limiting birthright citizenship due to modern phenomena like mass illegal immigration, it might be constitutionally permissible.
Dissenting Opinion:
(Opinion(s) by Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch), Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Neil Gorsuch)
Instead of viewing the Citizenship Clause as an absolute endorsement of territorial birthright citizenship (jus soli), the dissenting opinion argued that the text, history, and post-ratification practice of the 19th century limit constitutional birthright citizenship strictly to children whose parents are domiciled (permanently residing) in the United States.
The collective dissent operates on a precise, nationalist philosophy i.e. citizenship is a reciprocal political compact based on a permanent stake in the community, not a geographical accident. They argue that the Fourteenth Amendment was fundamentally a civil-rights engine built to eliminate a race-based caste system for structural insiders (the emancipated slaves who knew no other home), not a universal mandate to grant citizenship to the children of transient global travelers.
Justice Thomas’s principal dissent, joined by Justice Gorsuch, maintained that the Citizenship Clause requires complete political allegiance to the United States. Since unlawfully or temporarily present individuals do not owe such allegiance, their U.S.-born children, in his view, are not entitled to birthright citizenship.
The dissent argued that the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to give constitutional status to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which granted citizenship only to those born in the United States who were “not subject to any foreign power.” Justice Thomas relied on statements by lawmakers, especially Senator Lyman Trumbull, to argue that Congress did not intend to grant citizenship to children of temporary visitors.
Justice Thomas rejected the majority’s narrative that the United States quietly adopted the British common-law rule of jus soli. He characterized the English common law as a system of permanent “feudal servitude” and lifelong vassalage to the King, which the American settlers explicitly broke away from during the Revolution.
Justice Alito dissented that “subject to the jurisdiction” requires complete political allegiance, not mere obedience to U.S. laws. He argued that the Citizenship Clause deliberately uses different language from the Equal Protection Clause, indicating a different meaning, and warned that the majority’s interpretation would allow even children of short-term birth tourists to obtain permanent U.S. citizenship.
The dissenting opinion argued that the majority mistook Wong Kim Ark‘s sweeping, historical rhetoric (dicta) for its actual legal holding. Justice Gray’s binding conclusion at the end of the 1898 opinion explicitly limited the ruling to children born to alien parents who had a “permanent domicile and residence in the United States”.
The dissenting opinion relied on a litany of post-1898 legal treatises, State Department records, and Department of Justice briefs showing that for decades after Wong Kim Ark, the legal consensus remained that the 1898 decision did not cover transient vacationers or travelers passing through the country.
The dissenting opinion argued that the majority mistook Wong Kim Ark‘s sweeping, historical rhetoric (dicta) for its actual legal holding. Justice Gray’s binding conclusion at the end of the 1898 opinion explicitly limited the ruling to children born to alien parents who had a “permanent domicil and residence in the United States”.
The dissenting opinion relied on a litany of post-1898 legal treatises, State Department records, and Department of Justice briefs showing that for decades after Wong Kim Ark, the legal consensus remained that the 1898 decision did not cover transient vacationers or travelers passing through the country.
Conclusion And Implications
By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court closed the door on the attempt to transition the United States from a territorial-based citizenship model (jus soli) to a domicile- or bloodline-based framework (jus sanguinis) in the absence of a constitutional amendment.
As both Justices Thomas and Justice Alito highlighted in their dissenting opinion, the decision effectively gives constitutional protection to a broader interpretation of birthright citizenship. Conservatives argue that by guaranteeing citizenship to children of transient visitors or unlawful entrants, the Court is validating a system of “birth tourism” or “anchor babies” where wealthy foreign nationals can pay commercial companies to secure a permanent strategic foothold in the U.S. body politic.
India’s constitutional and legislative approach has evolved alongside changing migration realities. While the Constitution initially embraced jus soli, successive amendments to the Citizenship Act, 1955, culminating in the 2003 Amendment, introduced a more structured framework for citizenship by birth by linking it to the legal status of the parents. This reflects Parliament’s effort to balance the constitutional framework governing citizenship with considerations of migration management and sovereign authority over nationality.
The judgment may ultimately represent a political defeat but an intellectual victory for the conservative movement. While the Executive Order was struck down, the dissents transformed what had long been viewed as settled law into a contested constitutional question. Their reasoning reflects an emerging belief that constitutional interpretation should not remain indefinitely tied to nineteenth-century assumptions if those assumptions are considered impractical in addressing modern migration and border security challenges.
Justice Kavanaugh’s separate opinion provides a potent roadmap for future conservative majorities. By suggesting that Congress holds the constitutional authority to pass laws limiting birthright citizenship. This case may be viewed as signalling that the era of open, permissive, territorial citizenship is increasingly being questioned across constitutional democracies.
Annexure I
Historical Context
The Court traces the origins of birthright citizenship to English common law, where the principle of jus soli (right of the soil) governed nationality. Before the American Revolution, all persons born within the dominions of the British Crown were regarded as natural-born subjects, irrespective of the nationality or legal status of their parents. The relationship between the sovereign and the individual was founded on the reciprocal principles of protection and allegiance. The sovereign owed protection to every person born within his dominions, and in return, those persons owed allegiance to the Crown.
The Court relies on Lord Coke’s Calvin’s Case (1608) and Blackstone’s Commentaries (1765), which established that birth within the sovereign’s territory determined subjecthood. A child’s status was unaffected by the parents’ temporary presence or immigration status, as anyone born under the King’s protection was considered a natural-born subject.
The majority relied on the historical example of Romani families, whose children were recognized as natural-born subjects despite their parents facing expulsion, to show that a parent’s unlawful status does not prevent birthright citizenship.
The principle of jus soli acquired particular significance in a nation built through immigration. The United States attracted large numbers of immigrants from Europe, many of whom intended only temporary residence. Nevertheless, judicial decisions consistently held that children born to these immigrants became American citizens by virtue of birth alone. Cases such as Lynch v. Clarke (1844) reaffirmed that birth within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States was sufficient to confer citizenship, even where the parents were merely temporary visitors.
However, the case Dred Scott v. Sandford was a marked deviation from the common-law understanding of citizenship. Whereas the traditional rule emphasised birth within the sovereign’s territory, Dred Scott substituted a theory of citizenship based upon ancestry and race (jus sanguine). In this case, the Supreme Court held that persons descended from enslaved Africans could never become citizens of the United States, irrespective of where they were born.
The judgment was condemned by abolitionists, northern political leaders, and jurists alike. Abraham Lincoln described it as an astonishing departure from constitutional principles, while Frederick Douglass insisted that birth within the United States necessarily conferred American citizenship. These reactions laid the intellectual foundation for the constitutional reforms that followed the Civil War.
Following the Civil War, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, declaring that all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power were citizens.
Also, please consider subscribing to NFPRC Foundation’s focused centres covering latest economic, policy and administrative developments -
Centre for Law, Policy and Governance - Link
Centre for Accelerating India’s Growth - Link
Centre for Studies in Indian Social Systems - Link
NFPRC Foundation - Link