On June 30, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to maintain a lower court's decision against Trump's executive order. The Court ruled that the order, which aimed to restrict citizenship for children born in the U.S. based on their parents' immigration status, violated the 14th Amendment.
Chief Justice John Roberts stated, "In the majority opinion, citizenship is a fundamental right to participate in the American political community." He emphasized that the 14th Amendment should be interpreted as guaranteeing citizenship to all individuals born in the U.S., affirming the Court's commitment to that promise.
Trump signed the executive order on his first day in office, January 20, 2017, which denied citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders. This order also included children of foreign nationals with legal but temporary residency.
In response, 22 states led by Democratic governors, along with Washington D.C., filed a lawsuit claiming the order violated the 14th Amendment. Lower courts had previously ruled that the executive order was likely unconstitutional and suspended its enforcement.
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, shortly after the Civil War, and its core provision states that anyone born or naturalized in the U.S. is a citizen. Historically, the U.S. has recognized citizenship for children born on its soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status.
Despite a conservative majority on the Court, the principle of birthright citizenship was upheld. Chief Justice Roberts, along with Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, joined the liberal justices in the majority opinion. In contrast, Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito dissented.
Trump has argued that birthright citizenship was intended to guarantee citizenship for freed African Americans and their children after the Civil War, not for children of undocumented immigrants or those born through so-called “birth tourism.” However, the Supreme Court concluded that the executive branch cannot restrict citizenship for individuals born in the U.S. based on their parents' immigration status.
Additionally, the Court ruled that a federal law limiting political party spending on elections was unconstitutional. In a case led by Republican figures, including Vice President JD Vance, the Court determined that restricting a party's spending in coordination with candidates infringes on the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment.
While Trump faced a political setback regarding birthright citizenship, he gained a favorable outcome for the Republican Party in the matter of campaign finance regulations.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.