WASHINGTON (AP) 鈥� on Tuesday upheld a broad conception of , rejecting President Donald Trump鈥檚 executive order declaring that children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.
The justices relied on a long-settled understanding of , 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 Republican president’s restrictions had been blocked by several lower courts and had not taken effect anywhere in the U.S.
During arguments in April, both conservative and liberal justices questioned the order鈥檚 legality in a momentous case that was magnified by .
The case framed another test of Trump鈥檚 assertions of executive power that defy long-standing precedent for a court with a conservative majority and a robust view of presidential power that has largely ruled in his favor. In the notable exceptions when the court has not, Trump has responded with starkly personal criticisms of the justices.
The justices ruled on Trump鈥檚 appeal of a lower-court ruling from New Hampshire that struck down .
, which Trump signed on the first day of his second term, is part of his administration鈥檚 broad .
Birthright citizenship was the first Trump immigration-related policy to reach the court for a final ruling. The justices previously Trump had imposed under an emergency powers law that had never been used that way.
Trump reacted furiously to the late February tariffs decision, saying he was who ruled against him and calling them unpatriotic.
He also seemed to recognize the court was likely to rule against him on birthright citizenship, too, using his Truth Social platform to criticize 鈥渄umb judges and justices鈥� and wealthy pregnant women from China and elsewhere who come to the U.S. to give birth so their newborns will have American citizenship.
Trump鈥檚 order would have upended widely held views that confers citizenship on everyone born in the U.S., 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 is written more broadly. 鈥淎ll 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,鈥� it reads.
In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down Trump’s executive order as illegal. The decisions have invoked the high court鈥檚 1898 ruling in , which held that the U.S.-born child of Chinese nationals was a citizen.
The Trump administration argued that the common view of citizenship is wrong, asserting that children of noncitizens are not 鈥渟ubject to the jurisdiction鈥� of the United States and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.
More than one-quarter of a million babies born in the U.S. each year would have been affected by the executive order, according to research by the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University鈥檚 Population Research Institute.
While Trump has largely focused on illegal immigration in his rhetoric and actions, the birthright citizenship restrictions also would have applied to people who are legally in the United States, including students and applicants for green cards, or permanent resident status.
___
Follow the AP鈥檚 coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at .
Copyright © 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.
