The Supreme Court held 6–3 that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully present, or lawfully but temporarily present, are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment — striking down Executive Order 14160.
On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court held, 6–3, that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully present or lawfully but temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson. Justice Jackson filed a concurrence; Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment and dissented in part; Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Gorsuch; and Justices Alito and Gorsuch each filed separate dissents.
The majority's reasoning rests on three pillars. First, it reads the Citizenship Clause against the common-law jus soli rule, under which birth on sovereign soil generally conferred citizenship, subject only to narrow exceptions. Second, it treats the Clause as a Reconstruction-era repudiation of Dred Scott, designed to constitutionalize a broad, anti-caste rule of citizenship. Third, it treats United States v. Wong Kim Ark as controlling precedent confirming that virtually all children born on U.S. soil — other than the historically recognized narrow exceptions — are citizens at birth.
For immigrant families on temporary visas or without lawful status, the practical takeaway is direct: this decision preserves the longstanding rule that a baby born in the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth. It does not change the parents' own immigration status, removability, visa eligibility, or green-card timeline — the opinion is about the child's birthright citizenship, not the parents' independent rights.
For employers and universities, the ruling removes a destabilizing risk that had hovered over foreign-national employees and students on H-1B, F-1, O-1, and related temporary classifications. For employment-based immigrants, the immediate effect is narrower still: the decision does not change EB eligibility rules, but it does preserve birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children while parents are in temporary or other non-LPR status.
The litigation risk is not fully over. The majority's constitutional reasoning sharply constrains future attempts to narrow birthright citizenship by ordinary legislation, but Justice Kavanaugh's opinion expressly argued that Congress could enact such exceptions by statute, and the dissents sketched alternate readings centered on domicile, exclusive allegiance, and facial-challenge limits. Renewed legislative proposals are likely; doctrinally, any new law would face immediate and serious constitutional challenge under the majority's reasoning.
Short version: if your baby is born in the United States, that baby is a U.S. citizen at birth — full stop, regardless of the parents' immigration status. The Supreme Court just reaffirmed that this has been true since the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, and a 2025 executive order trying to change it does not hold up.
This case started with Executive Order 14160, signed January 20, 2025, which tried to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children when a parent was unlawfully present, or lawfully but only temporarily present (think H-1B, F-1, O-1, and similar visa categories) and the other parent wasn't a citizen or green-card holder. A federal court in New Hampshire blocked the order nationwide before it ever took effect. The Supreme Court took the case directly — skipping the usual appeals-court step — and, after argument in April 2026, ruled the executive order unconstitutional.
What this means for your family: nothing changes about how you document your child's citizenship. A U.S. birth certificate remains the standard proof for a passport application, and your child may also hold dual citizenship if your home country recognizes citizenship by descent.
What this does NOT mean: it does not change a parent's own visa status, green-card timeline, removability, or path to citizenship. This ruling is entirely about the child's citizenship at birth — not about the parents' independent immigration case.