The US Supreme Court has struck down President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship
The president says on social media that the ruling is "too bad for our country" and suggests Congress can legislate an end to the Constitutional law
In a 6-3 decision, the justices upheld a 150-year-old precedent giving automatic American citizenship to babies born in the US – how it works
Trump earlier issued an order to end automatic citizenship for babies born to parents who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas
The ruling definitively slams the door on Trump's efforts, and there is little the president can do to reverse it, our correspondent writes
The court has also ruled that states can ban transgender athletes from women's sports in schools and struck down a ban on how campaign spending is coordinated
This video can not be played
Edited by Oliver O'Connell and Caitlin Wilson
Kwasi Gyamfi Asiedu
Live reporter
The US Supreme Court has issued several important decisions during its 2025-2026 term culminating in today's landmark decision upholding birthright citizenship and striking down President Donald Trump's attempts to limit it. Today, the court also ruled that states can ban transgender women from competing in female school and college sports.
Chief Justice John Roberts has indicated today will be the last day for opinions, so it's a good time to look back at some of the monumental rulings over the course of the term.
In February, the court voted in a 6-3 majority decision to invalidate most of President Donald Trump's global tariffs, dealing a major blow to the president's trade agenda.
In March, the court struck down Colorado's state law banning so-called conversion therapy – a practice which seeks to change the sexual orientation and gender identity of gay, lesbian, and transgender people.
In April, the justices restricted the ability of state lawmakers to take race into account when drawing electoral maps, a decision that has spawned new voting maps in Republican-led states that could impact the midterm elections in November.
Yesterday, the court blocked Trump's attempts to immediately fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, saying she had not been given due process to contest allegations of mortgage fraud.
But it has also handed several wins for the Trump administration. It allowed the government to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians living in the US.
The court also allowed Trump to remove officials from some independent federal institutions.
We are closing our coverage of the Supreme Court for now. You can read more about today's rulings below: 
Gary O'Donoghue
Chief North America correspondent, reporting from Washington DC
This trans sports case decision is a legal ruling — but its cultural shockwaves will reverberate far beyond the gleaming marble columns of this Supreme Court.
In upholding state laws in West Virginia and Idaho barring transgender women and girls from female sports teams in schools and universities, it has handed down one of the most consequential decisions of Donald Trump's second term.
The ruling is squarely in line with Trump's direction of travel on the issue. Its reach goes well beyond two states. Two dozen others have similar laws on the books; today's decision validates all of them — and confirms a pattern from the court.
This is a court that has already backed Trump's ban on transgender people in the military and blocked passport applicants from listing their gender identity.
It marks a striking reversal of trajectory, in recent history. The court's own 2020 ruling protecting transgender people from workplace discrimination felt, at the time, like a watershed. Today makes clear the position of transgender people in US society is far from settled.
The Supreme Court issued other rulings today besides the one on birthright citizenship.
In on decision, the court upheld state bans on transgender women from competing in female sports in schools and colleges.
The attorney general for West Virginia – one of the two states which was being challenged – lauded the ruling as a "landmark win for female athletes and the future of women's sports".
In a statement on X, Attorney General JB McCuskey said the decision would give "all states, not just West Virginia, the clarity and confidence to ensure fairness and safety for female athletes today and for generations to come".
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which advocates for the LGBT community, criticised the court's decision.
“This ruling is heartbreaking for transgender student athletes who are being forced to sit on the sidelines simply for who they are,” said HRC President Kelley Robinson.
Sakshi Venkatraman
US reporter
Today's Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship stemmed from an executive order signed by Donald Trump last year. Challenges to the order made their way to the Supreme Court earlier this year, with oral arguments focused on the text of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
This is the section of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution that the Supreme Court heard argument earlier in April:
The Trump administration honed in one one particular phrase: subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
That phrase has previously been believed to only exclude children of foreign diplomats or occupying armies from having birthright citizenship.
But Trump said it should exclude children of people who are not in the country permanently or lawfully.
The president argued that it should exclude immigrants who do not have a "permanent domicile" here.
People "who are domiciled elsewhere, and are only temporarily present in the United States, owe primary allegiance to their parents' home countries, not the United States", the administration argued.
Many constitutional and civil rights law experts take issue with this.
"People who are here out of status, that doesn't change that they are residents here," says Margo Schlanger, a law professor at the University of Michigan.
The court today appeared to agree with that assessment in their decision.
Hakeem Jeffries
Democrats have praised today's Supreme Court ruling.
"The Supreme Court finally affirmed, by applying the law and being guided by the Constitution, that all persons born in the United States are American citizens," Hakeem Jeffries, who leads Democrats in the US House of Representatives, says. "There is, and shall be, no question."
Those sentiments were echoed by Chuck Schumer, the US Senate's minority leader.
"Despite Trump’s best efforts to bully them, the Supreme Court just reaffirmed that if you are born in America, you belong in America… The Supreme Court confirmed today that those born in America are American."
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren says there was still more work to be done.
"Even Trump’s hand-picked Supreme Court knows that birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution," Warren says in a statement. "The fight to defend immigrant rights from Trump's cruelty is not over, but today the Court upheld the law."
New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani also hailed the decision.
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling affirms a promise that was written into our Constitution more than 150 years ago: if you are born on American soil, you are an American citizen," he says. "This should never have been in doubt."
Read more of Republicans' responses here and here.
Paul Christian Namphy, the policy director for Family Action Network Movement (FANM), an immigrant advocacy organisation, says the group is "relieved" by today's ruling.
"This could have been an absolute absolute nightmare," he says of if the majority of justices had ruled in favour of Trump.
But, Namphy adds, he was "shocked that [three] justices would rule in the way that they ruled, given that there is absolutely zero legal ground for taking that position".
"The very fact that Justice Clarence Thomas really lunged at the court in a 91 page dissent, it’s just crazy," he says.
In his dissent, Thomas argues the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the US Civil War in the late 1800s to secure rights for freed slaves, is now being "repurposed for political projects". Gary O'Donoghue
Chief North America correspondent, reporting from Washington DC
This birthright citizenship ruling is probably the biggest defeat of President Trump’s term in the White House. He also lost the case on foreign tariffs, but this is a pretty big one because he made it a big one.
He made this executive order on day one of his second term. He said he was ending birth tourism, he said it was abuse, a waste of resources, and that it should have been done years ago.
He said no other country in the world has this right which isn’t true – Mexico and Canada both have versions of birthright citizenship, along with more than two dozen others.
After he came to the Supreme Court and sat listening to oral evidence – the first president to ever do that – he started to talk about expecting a defeat, so he clearly did expect a defeat and he got it.
And he got it pretty resoundingly. It wasn't close in any particular way. The upholding of this right reaffirms the status quo, but for the president, it's a huge blow.
And if he wants to try and change it, he has to try and change the constitution. And that, in modern-day America is virtually impossible.Kwasi Gyamfi Asiedu
Live reporter
Legal experts have been reading over the decision on birthright citizenship handed down today by Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the majority's opinion.
David Leebron, professor of legal studies at Rice University and former dean of Columbia University's law school, says Roberts "issued an excellent opinion that faithfully interprets the history of the 14th amendment, and the understanding of the 14th amendment."
The 6-3 decision was supported by the three liberal justices and three conservative justices – even though one supported the ruling on different grounds.
Leebron says despite disagreements, that composition of justices shows that court is more complex than its six conservatives versus three liberals make up might suggest.
"We have seen many unusual coalitions on the court," he says. "Here are six justices of the court, affirming some principles of interpretation in a very important and controversial matter and have said the president cannot exceed the bounds of the Constitution. That part should be very reassuring to people."
President Donald Trump has now made his first comments following today's Supreme Court ruling striking down his executive order limiting birthright citizenship.
"The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country," Trump says in a post on social media platform Truth Social.
His statement goes on to suggest Congress will be able to limit birthright citizenship through legislation, despite the court's ruling.
…We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process. No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!
Donald Trump, US President
We have not still not heard President Donald Trump's reaction to the court's decision to strike down his execuitive order limiting birthright citizenship.
But we can bring you comments from Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy and the official often described as the architect behind the executive order and Trump's immigration policies.
Miller says in a statement, the ruling is "one of the most destructive and outrageous decisions in the long history of the Supreme Court".
American citizenship is not the birthright of the world. It belongs only and solely to Americans. No provision of the Constitution can be read to require our national self-obliteration.
Stephen Miller, White House's deputy chief of staff for policy
Bernd Debusmann Jr
White House reporter
While today's Supreme Court ruling is clearly a defeat for the Trump administration, immigration advocates and lawmakers are declaring victory.
Since the ruling, my inbox and phone have been buzzing with statements and messages from the organisations that have long condemned Trump's immigration policies as being too harsh.
"Today, the Fourteenth Amendment proved once again that it is stronger than the forces trying to hollow it out," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, President and CEO of Global Refuge.
Dariely Rodriguez, chief counsel at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said that the ruling "solidifies what we have known to be true for over a hundred years".
"Anyone born on American soil, regardless of the legal status of their parents, is born an American citizen," she added. We have endured an incredible test of our collective will as a nation and have prevailed.
A Democratic lawmaker and frequenty critic of Trump's, Illinois represesentative Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, described Trump's attempt to end birthrighrt citizenship as "a cruel and racist attempt" to render millions without legal citizenship.
"Even right-wing justices like Roberts and Barrett wouldn’t buy it," he added.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican, was holding a press conference when he heard about the Supreme Court's ruling on birthright citizenship.
As a reporter read out the court's decision in which the majority of justices ruled against Trump, Johnson growled and other Republicans standing nearby shook their heads.
The House Speaker said he was "disappointed" in the ruling and noted it is a "textualist, originalist view" under the 14th amendment.
"I do think this has been grossly abused in recent years," Johnson said of birthright citizenship.
Lisa Lambert
BBC News
Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined five others in voting against Trump's executive order, but his reasoning was all his own.
"In my view, the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment," he wrote in an opinion explaining his divergence. "The constitutional issue is not straightforward, much as we might want it to be."
Basically, Kavanaugh's problem with the executive order stems from immigration legislation passed early in the 20th century – the Nationality Act of 1940 and Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Lawmakers used language from the 14th amendment and also parts of the Court's Wong Kirk Ark decision in 1898 that created four exceptions to the amendment (such as someone born to a foreign sovereign is not a citizen) in their legislation.
For Kavanaugh, that means creating further exceptions for the children of illegal immigrants or people in the US temporarily should be an act of Congress – not a presidential order.
Then Kavanaugh lays a possible case at to why Congress should pass a law on those two exceptions.
The Constitution is applied "to modern situations that were unknown or unanticipated by the Constitution’s Framers", and the crafters of the 14th amendment after the Civil War could not have foreseen current issues with immigration, he argues.
They could not have anticipated – or even intended – the US would grant citizenship to children whose parents break the law in coming to the country, but deny citizenship to people "who follow US immigration law and have children in their home countries while seeking to lawfully immigrate to the United States".
It also would have been hard to imagine people traveling to the US temporarily to give birth to babies, and thereby make them citizens, given how different travel and immigration laws were when the amendment was ratified in 1868, he says.
Trump's motorcade outside the Supreme Court
President Donald Trump has yet to respond to his loss in a case in which he has shown a strong personal interest. He signed the executive order seeking to prohibit birthright citizenship on his first day back in the White House for his second term.
But more extraordinarily, he attended oral arguments for the case in April. He sat in the audience as his Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued on behalf of the Trump administration.
Critics said his appearance was an improper effort to influence the court on a decision with major repercussions for his domestic policy.
The president left after Sauer's presentation, which was subjected to intense scrutiny from the justices, suggesting that a majority of the court was unconvinced by Trump's justifications to end birthright citizenship.
Afterwards, Trump berated the justices in public remarks saying that judges who he appointed but vote against him are "stupid people."
Anthony Zurcher
North America correspondent
By citing the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, the Supreme Court definitively slams the door on Donald Trump’s efforts to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented migrants and most temporary foreign residents.
According to Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, the language of the amendment – passed shortly after the end of US civil war – is clear: “All persons born or naturalised in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”.
Trump and his legal team had argued that undocumented migrants were not “subject” to US jurisdiction. Roberts and the court majority emphatically disagreed.
Because the court’s majority held that the US Constitution is explicit in this regard, there is little that Trump can do to reverse its ruling – and deny birthright citizenship – short of amending America’s founding document. That is an arduous task that has only been accomplished 27 times in US history.
We're waiting to hear from the president about the birthright decision, a defeat for him and his administration.
In the meantime, he's posted on social media platform Truth Social about the transgender athletes case we reported on earlier.
"The United States Supreme Court just RULED AGAINST MEN PLAYING IN WOMEN’S SPORTS. Wow! That takes that ridiculous situation off the table!!! President DONALD J. TRUMP," he wrote.
Three justices dissented from today's decision to uphold birthright citizenship: Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito.
The three justices cite several reasons for disagreeing with the majority decision.
Justice Thomas argues in his dissent that the 14th Amendment is now being "repurposed for political projects" that go beyond its "sad history" of securing equal right for freed slaves, whom he argues were entitled to citizenship because "they were Americans" with no other homeland or allegiance to another foreign power.
Justice Alito used more dramatic language in his dissent, saying the ruling was "one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake".
He says Tuesday's ruling "confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of 'birth tourists,' women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home".
Alito argues that "careful analysis" of the 14th Amendment gives citizenship to "only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country". Bernd Debusmann Jr
White House reporter
We've yet to President Trump, who is likely to be furious at being handed a defeat by the Supreme Court.
Trump has, for years, made ending birthright citizenship a corner of his immigration policies. As far back at 2015, Trump – then still a candidate – called for an end to the practice, describing it as "the biggest magnet for illegal immigration".
His executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship was signed within hours of his return to the White House last year, and the topic is one he has brought up frequently in both public remarks and on Truth Social.
Just a few weeks ago, for example, he posted that the US "cannot live with the shackles" of birthright citizenship.
"It is not economically, or otherwise, sustainable and no other country in the world, of consequence, does it," he added.
The US president has reacted angrily in past instances in which the Supreme Court thwarted his policy objectives, such as tariffs. We are likely to hear more of that today.Gary O'Donoghue
Chief North America correspondent, reporting from Washington DC
This is a ruling that will be studied in constitutional law classes for years to come. The Supreme Court — a bench reshaped by Trump himself — has delivered a clear message: the 14th Amendment guaranteeing birthright citizenship can't simply be annulled with the stroke of the Presidential pen.
The personal and political dimension for Trump cannot be underestimated. This is a court he fundamentally reshaped — and one that has now ruled against one of the signature promises of his political career. That is not merely a legal setback — it is a pointed institutional rebuke — a slap in the face — from a bench he genuinely believed would serve not just as an ally, but as an instrument of his will.
This is right up there with the defeat the court has already handed out on the President's attempts to impose hefty tariffs on foreign imports. That drew some searing words from Donald Trump who said two of his own appointees "sickened him" after the decision; adding they were an embarrassment to their families and disloyal to the constitution.
He expected to lose on tariffs; he expected to lose on birthright; that's unlikely to stop him from lashing out at those on whom, not long ago, he would have heaped on the adulation and praise. Loyalty is everything to this President, and any sign that it's anything other than total is usually met with bitter vitriol.
Today's Supreme Court decision was a 6-3 ruling in favour of upholding birthright citizenship.
The ruling was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who says that children born to parents who are in the US unlawfully or temporarily are "citizens at birth" under the US constitution.
In the ruling, he invokes the history of the 14th Amendment, which was passed in the wake of the US Civil War to settle the question of the citizenship of freed, American-born former slaves.
"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,'" Roberts writes. "We keep that promise today."
Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Leave a Reply