Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(173,827 posts)
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 10:37 AM Yesterday

Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, blocks Trump order

Source: CNBC

Published Tue, Jun 30 2026 10:35 AM EDT Updated 2 Min Ago


The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the right to citizenship for people born in the United States, rejecting an executive order by President Donald Trump that sought to undo that longstanding constitutional principle for children born to many immigrants.

“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 majority decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts said.

Roberts was joined by his fellow conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, along with the court’s three liberal justices, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in the majority ruling on 14th Amendment grounds.

Another conservative, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote that he did not believe Trump’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment, but that it “does contravene a federal statute” adopted in 1940 that addresses the citizenship of people born in the U.S. The court’s justices had signaled during oral arguments in April that they would affirm that individuals born in the United States to non-U.S. citizens are automatically granted citizenship.

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/30/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-ruling.html



Link to ORDER (PDF) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf


Article updated.

Previous article -

Published Tue, Jun 30 2026 10:35 AM EDT Updated 1 Min Ago


The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the right to citizenship for people born in the United States, rejecting an executive order by President Donald Trump that sought to undo that longstanding constitutional principle for children born to many immigrants.

The court's justices had signaled during oral arguments in April that they would affirm that individuals born in the United States to non-U.S. citizens are automatically granted citizenship. Trump attended the oral arguments for the case, the first sitting president ever to do so. The case is known as Trump v. Barbara.

The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which was adopted in 1868, says,"All 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."

Trump, on his first day back in the White House on Jan. 20, 2025, signed an executive order seeking to undo that right. The order said that 30 days after its effective date, babies born in the U.S. were not entitled to be issued citizenship documents if their parents had immigrated illegally or were undocumented workers.



Original article -

Published Tue, Jun 30 2026 10:35 AM EDT


This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.
46 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, blocks Trump order (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Yesterday OP
Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, striking down Trump's order LetMyPeopleVote Yesterday #1
It would have been a huge surprise if it was unanimous. onenote Yesterday #3
Strange, isn't it..... SergeStorms 23 hrs ago #33
Should have been 9-0 Deminpenn Yesterday #5
Not surprised that it wasn't 9-0 Old Crank Yesterday #6
I didn't see how divided it was... could you tell me? I'm headed out the door on errands... thanks! slightlv Yesterday #8
6-3 decision LetMyPeopleVote Yesterday #11
Five to Three.... reACTIONary Yesterday #2
5-3 SMDH slightlv Yesterday #9
Yes, 5 to 3 is disappointing, maybe... reACTIONary Yesterday #12
It would have been a surprise if it were a unanimous decision. J_William_Ryan Yesterday #4
I can't believe I'm saying this but I give Thomas a little credit in his dissent jgmiller Yesterday #7
I see what you are saying... reACTIONary Yesterday #14
The debate point seemed to be focused on the term "domicile" BumRushDaShow Yesterday #18
I was thinking they would tweak the visitor LeftInTX Yesterday #29
I'm upset that I . . . AverageOldGuy Yesterday #10
So does this mean alito is no longer an "originalist?" MoseShrute Yesterday #13
"Originalist" and "Textualist" are basically scams.... reACTIONary Yesterday #16
it means he's a racist liar (also a misogynist and theofascist) LymphocyteLover Yesterday #21
It only applies when you agree with what it says! Callie1979 23 hrs ago #30
I'm actually surprised. Gaytano70 Yesterday #15
I would have liked 9 to 0... reACTIONary Yesterday #17
Same. YodaMom2 Yesterday #25
From Robert's opinion Danmel Yesterday #19
Super important point-- this issue isn't going away for the rightwing. We HAVE to fix the court. LymphocyteLover Yesterday #20
But Roe was never an Amendment. Callie1979 23 hrs ago #32
Yeah, but the point is they have their teeth in this one and are unlikely to let go LymphocyteLover 20 hrs ago #42
The court got this one right. republianmushroom Yesterday #22
It was 5/4 Dangling0826 Yesterday #23
What?!??!! The thugs and hacks on the Supreme Court actually READ the Constitution? NNadir Yesterday #24
Judge Thomas DonCoquixote Yesterday #26
He got his... Kablooie 23 hrs ago #36
The law isn't important to Trump. What is important to him is his racist signaling to his adoring base, and he has Doodley Yesterday #27
Relieved, but thought it would 7-2 LeftInTX Yesterday #28
Yay! But... what's next? WestMichRad 23 hrs ago #31
I support our next Democratic president throwing spaghetti at the wall with outlandish overreach too! ffr 23 hrs ago #34
Three of them.., Kablooie 23 hrs ago #35
Marco Rubio and JD Vance are going to be crushed. Aristus 22 hrs ago #37
It's scary how close this was fujiyamasan 22 hrs ago #38
even roberts can't undo a fucking amendment. big fucking DUH! pansypoo53219 22 hrs ago #39
I love how liberals are accused of legislating from the bench lakercub 22 hrs ago #40
One less thing to worry about for now. mtngirl47 21 hrs ago #41
Good. Thankful. Plenty of MAGAts were looking to throw me out IronLionZion 18 hrs ago #43
Legal experts sound alarm after razor-thin birthright vote: 'The most insane part' LetMyPeopleVote 2 hrs ago #44
This ruling should have been 9-0 LetMyPeopleVote 57 min ago #45
Impeachments sedwin 50 min ago #46

LetMyPeopleVote

(184,200 posts)
1. Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, striking down Trump's order
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 10:45 AM
Yesterday

The only surprise is that this was not a unanimous decision
Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, striking down Trump's order
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-trump-decision/

Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, reaffirming the more than 100-year-old understanding that nearly all of those born in the United States are citizens.

In a divided decision in the case Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court found that Mr. Trump's policy is unlawful.

With its decision, the Supreme Court has now invalidated a second of Mr. Trump's signature initiatives from his second term, joining its ruling striking down many of his tariffs in February. The president signed his directive aiming to restrict birthright citizenship on his first day back in the White House as part of a sweeping crackdown on immigration.

onenote

(46,366 posts)
3. It would have been a huge surprise if it was unanimous.
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 10:54 AM
Yesterday

Thomas and Alito dissenting was a given

SergeStorms

(21,093 posts)
33. Strange, isn't it.....
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 01:01 PM
23 hrs ago

that they'll expand the Constitution to include anything that increases executive power, but shrink the Constitution to exclude anything about voting rights? 🤔 What's up with that? 😉

But don't dare accuse them of being "activist judges." Only Democrats can seat "activist judges."

Deminpenn

(17,639 posts)
5. Should have been 9-0
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 10:56 AM
Yesterday

but Alito and Thomas believe in kings. Gorsuch is, except on rare occasions, a rw hack.

Old Crank

(7,440 posts)
6. Not surprised that it wasn't 9-0
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 10:57 AM
Yesterday

It was 6-3 with Kavenaugh concurring with a minor dissent.

The Economist ran their models and figured it would be 6-3 or 5-4 for keeping the law as it stands.

The disenting 3 are the usual suspects. Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas

slightlv

(8,220 posts)
8. I didn't see how divided it was... could you tell me? I'm headed out the door on errands... thanks!
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:04 AM
Yesterday

reACTIONary

(7,441 posts)
2. Five to Three....
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 10:51 AM
Yesterday

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
SOTOMAYOR,
KAGAN,
BARRETT, and
JACKSON, JJ., joined.

JACKSON, J.,
filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to the introduction and Part I.

KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part.

THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which
GORSUCH, J., joined.

ALITO, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed dissenting
opinions.

reACTIONary

(7,441 posts)
12. Yes, 5 to 3 is disappointing, maybe...
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:12 AM
Yesterday

.... to be expected, but disappointing.

In a land that's known as freedom, how can such a thing be fair? It should have been unanimous.

I'll take what we can get, but we have a lot of work left to do. That is, leftward.

J_William_Ryan

(3,672 posts)
4. It would have been a surprise if it were a unanimous decision.
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 10:55 AM
Yesterday

This should never have been litigated to begin with – a ridiculous waste of time.

Trump regime’s immigration agenda is motivated by racism, bigotry, and hate.

jgmiller

(715 posts)
7. I can't believe I'm saying this but I give Thomas a little credit in his dissent
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:03 AM
Yesterday

Alito's dissent was basically what you would expect but Thomas at least attempted to find some logic to the dissent which seems to be at least partially why Gorsuch joined it. From what I can see he bases it on if the parents of the person who is born her is now living here and has moved from their home country. In other words he seems to want to say that if someone is just visiting even for a year but they maintain a home in another country then they have not moved here permanently. In the end I disagree with him because that's not what the 14th says but at least he tried to be logical.

reACTIONary

(7,441 posts)
14. I see what you are saying...
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:15 AM
Yesterday

... but as you said, that is not what the 14th says. Yet another "textualist" failure.

BumRushDaShow

(173,827 posts)
18. The debate point seemed to be focused on the term "domicile"
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:32 AM
Yesterday

and what that may have meant in the 1800s vs today.

LeftInTX

(34,991 posts)
29. I was thinking they would tweak the visitor
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 12:29 PM
Yesterday

Visa thing. But things are hard to tweak via the Supreme Court.

And throwing out birthright citizenship outright, would be wrong.

AverageOldGuy

(4,394 posts)
10. I'm upset that I . . .
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:07 AM
Yesterday

. . . can’t see Trump’s reaction.

Wife is in rehab, she wants me here 24/7, tv is limited, don’t know the politics of other people here so I can’t watch Rachel and Lawrence and cheer.

Maybe this will lead him to blow a gasket.

I’m depending on DU comments to keep me informed!!!

MoseShrute

(179 posts)
13. So does this mean alito is no longer an "originalist?"
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:13 AM
Yesterday

Or that concept just didn’t work in this situation?

reACTIONary

(7,441 posts)
16. "Originalist" and "Textualist" are basically scams....
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:19 AM
Yesterday

... this yet again shows that to be the case.

The only reason "originalists" are originalists is that we have progressed since the origin, so the "origin" is more amenable to being contorted to what they desire.

Gaytano70

(1,307 posts)
15. I'm actually surprised.
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:17 AM
Yesterday

I thought when they released all their less offensive decisions yesterday they were creating a smoke screen for today when they actually obliterated the Constitution. Glad to be proven wrong.

Danmel

(5,834 posts)
19. From Robert's opinion
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:38 AM
Yesterday

As the daughter of immigrants, I am relieved that they got this one right.
"Citizenship, then and now", Roberts concludes, "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. We keep that promise today."

Trying to salvage a speck of decency I guess.

LymphocyteLover

(10,447 posts)
20. Super important point-- this issue isn't going away for the rightwing. We HAVE to fix the court.
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:40 AM
Yesterday

With this ruling, the birthright issue is not going away. The right hasn't really begun *organizing* around getting rid of the citizenship clause. Like Roe, this will be their fight for a generation. And if the Democrats just say "we won" and ignore it, like Roe, the Republicans will eventually win.

ElieNYC (@elienyc.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T14:43:28.616Z

Callie1979

(1,509 posts)
32. But Roe was never an Amendment.
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 12:58 PM
23 hrs ago

even Justic Ginsberg said the original ruling was a poor one.
Here, as Kavenaugh says, Congress CAN make a change. But it would likely have to be another Amendment. Which, properly written, I think would pass. Just like a term limits one would.

NNadir

(38,891 posts)
24. What?!??!! The thugs and hacks on the Supreme Court actually READ the Constitution?
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 11:59 AM
Yesterday

The actual words in it?

That is something quite new.

DonCoquixote

(13,993 posts)
26. Judge Thomas
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 12:01 PM
Yesterday

Consider that the 14th was what allowed YOU to be a citizen, don'y you find yourself at odd with yourself?

Doodley

(12,146 posts)
27. The law isn't important to Trump. What is important to him is his racist signaling to his adoring base, and he has
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 12:08 PM
Yesterday

yet another grievance about American institutions that are stopping him from implementing his racist agenda.

WestMichRad

(3,530 posts)
31. Yay! But... what's next?
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 12:58 PM
23 hrs ago

You know the right wing extremists won't let this issue lie dormant. Maybe...?
- females denied entry into the US
- mandatory pregnancy tests before allowing entry
- women seeking entry to the US forced to sign a document acknowledging that any children they may have while here cannot be citizens and must leave the country at the earliest possible date
- foreign parents of children born here coerced or bribed into signing away rights (and then deported)

Yeah, some of these are pretty plainly illegal, but since when have these scum operated wholly within the law?

ffr

(23,460 posts)
34. I support our next Democratic president throwing spaghetti at the wall with outlandish overreach too!
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 01:16 PM
23 hrs ago

We're all, phew! We dodged a bullet, democracy saved for one more day. And the GOP is thinking keep chipping away at democracy until Project 2025 is realized and there is no more America as we know it, just a land of oligarchy.

Kablooie

(19,142 posts)
35. Three of them..,
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 01:28 PM
23 hrs ago

Still think they can ignore the constitution and make up new laws all by themselves.

Aristus

(72,758 posts)
37. Marco Rubio and JD Vance are going to be crushed.
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 01:59 PM
22 hrs ago

They really, REALLY want to strip people of their citizenship.

fujiyamasan

(2,201 posts)
38. It's scary how close this was
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 02:12 PM
22 hrs ago

Shows how several of his henchmen on the court are willing to let him get away with the most blatant unconstitutional shit you can imagine.

lakercub

(673 posts)
40. I love how liberals are accused of legislating from the bench
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 02:27 PM
22 hrs ago

when that is EXACTLY what Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas just tried to do. This executive order was so preposterously unconstitutional and such a clear violation of the CLEAR language of the 14th amendment that to be a dissenter in this case was to give the whole game away. We already knew what and who these people are, but when it is a case this blatant it really should be grounds for impeachment. It won't happen of course.

I wish there was a defined set of standards that all these people had to meet in order to keep their positions. Obviously that standard would be absurdly low do to politics, but when you try to make a 1+1 = 6 decision it should be grounds for immediate removal. This case was that clear cut. In fact it never should have been taken up.

mtngirl47

(1,277 posts)
41. One less thing to worry about for now.
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 03:02 PM
21 hrs ago

It's so exhausting. Every day. Their grifting, and lying, and just being all around douche bags.

IronLionZion

(51,720 posts)
43. Good. Thankful. Plenty of MAGAts were looking to throw me out
Tue Jun 30, 2026, 06:02 PM
18 hrs ago

MAGAts hate when job stealers are born here.

LetMyPeopleVote

(184,200 posts)
44. Legal experts sound alarm after razor-thin birthright vote: 'The most insane part'
Wed Jul 1, 2026, 10:27 AM
2 hrs ago

This was really a 5-4 opinion. This is really scary. trump and these racist assholes are not going to stop going after Birthright Citizenship

Legal experts sound alarm after razor-thin birthright vote: 'The most insane part' #RawStory

#TuckFrump (@realtuckfrumper.bsky.social) 2026-06-30T16:58:08.000Z

https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-birthright-reax/

Reactions were mounting among legal analysts Tuesday after the Supreme Court rejected President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship order.

The divided court ruled in a 6-3 majority decision in Trump v. Barbara, upholding the 14th Amendment and blocking Trump's efforts to eliminate birthright citizenship, "but the Court split 5-4 on whether a future Congress could do what President Trump could not," CNN reported.

Legal experts and political commentators weighed in on the high court's decision.

"A shockingly close call on how to read plain English in the first sentence of a constitutional amendment," Adam Klasfeld, editor-in-chief of All Rise News, wrote on X.

"It was struck down 6-3 decision, although only 5-4 on the Constitutional question. Four justices would have rewritten the Constitution's plain text and ignored centuries of precedent on the scope of birthright citizenship. Thankfully, they were the minority," immigration attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick wrote on X...

"A shockingly close call on how to read plain English in the first sentence of a constitutional amendment," Adam Klasfeld, editor-in-chief of All Rise News, wrote on X.

"Everyone should be extremely concerned that birthright citizenship was 5-4 and not unanimous," Mueller, She Wrote podcaster Allison Gill wrote on Bluesky.

"Jesus, three dissenting votes on birthright just might be the most insane part of this court's entire awful term," MS NOW host Chris Hayes wrote on Bluesky.

sedwin

(4 posts)
46. Impeachments
Wed Jul 1, 2026, 11:43 AM
50 min ago

The Constitution states that to repeal or amend an existing amendment, a new amendment must be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states. This process is intentionally difficult to ensure stability in the Constitution.

Therefore, Trumps executive order to modify the amendment is illegal under the Constitution. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch voting to let the modification go through is also illegal under the Constitution. It is high time to impeach these blatant lawbreakers. They are violating their oaths and attempting to violate Constitutional Law.

Conservatiism is no longer a valid movement.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court upholds bir...