What is Birthright Citizenship? 10 key points to know about the US Supreme Court's decision today
US
Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling
: What it means and how it changes presidential powers-
In a landmark decision on June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court made a major ruling affecting the future of birthright citizenship and how much power presidents have when issuing executive orders. The Court didn't outright end the constitutional right to citizenship for children born on U.S. soil—but it did clear the way for President Donald Trump's controversial executive order to begin taking effect. More importantly, it drastically limits how federal courts can block presidential actions nationwide. Here's everything you need to know about what happened, why it matters, and what comes next.
What is birthright citizenship and why is it at the center of the legal fight?
Birthright citizenship is based on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that anyone born in the United States and 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' is a U.S. citizen. This rule has long applied even to children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors.
In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aimed at denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or only temporarily. This sparked immediate backlash from immigrant rights groups, who argue that the executive order goes against the Constitution.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Victoria Principal Is Almost 75, See Her Now
Reportingly
Undo
Why did the Supreme Court limit nationwide injunctions?
After Trump's executive order was issued, federal courts quickly stepped in and blocked its enforcement with nationwide injunctions. But on June 27, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal district courts had overstepped their authority.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the conservative majority, said that lower courts may only issue injunctions that protect the people who actually filed the lawsuit, not block the law across the entire country. This means that while Trump's order remains on hold for now, it's only blocked for a limited number of plaintiffs, not for everyone.
Live Events
Is birthright citizenship still legal in the US?
Yes—for now. The Court's ruling did not decide whether Trump's order is constitutional. Instead, it focused only on the procedure—specifically how courts can pause government actions while cases are pending. So birthright citizenship still stands, but the fight over it will continue in the courts for months, if not years.
Justice Barrett made it clear that lower courts have 30 days to narrow their injunctions. In practical terms, this opens the door for the Trump administration to start enforcing the executive order soon—at least for people not directly involved in the lawsuit.
Here are 10 key takeaways from today's Supreme Court decision:
Birthright citizenship explained
Birthright citizenship refers to the legal principle that anyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status. This right is granted by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that all persons 'born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' are citizens.
The Trump Executive Order
In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aiming to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or temporarily. This move reignited national debate on the scope of the 14th Amendment.
The lawsuit and injunction
Several immigrant advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations sued the administration, and federal courts quickly issued
nationwide injunctions
, temporarily halting enforcement of the order across the country.
Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions
In today's ruling, the Supreme Court held that federal district courts had
overreached their authority
by issuing nationwide injunctions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said courts can only block executive actions for
named plaintiffs
and within their jurisdiction—not for the entire nation.
A procedural, not constitutional, decision
Importantly, the Court did
not rule
on whether Trump's executive order violates the 14th Amendment. It focused only on the legal question of
how far courts can go
in stopping federal actions during ongoing litigation.
The 30-day window
The Court gave lower courts
30 days
to revise or narrow their injunctions. This means the current block on Trump's order remains for now—but likely only for those directly involved in the case.
Liberal dissent
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. They warned that limiting injunctions would allow potentially unconstitutional actions to impact millions of people before a full legal review can be completed.
Impact on future litigation
This decision redefines how legal challenges to federal policies proceed. Moving forward, district courts will find it harder to issue sweeping nationwide bans—even in urgent civil rights cases.
Trump hails the ruling
President Trump celebrated the decision, calling it a victory over 'radical left judges' who he claims have tried to overrule executive power. His campaign has emphasized ending birthright citizenship as part of his broader immigration agenda.
What's next?
While the nationwide injunctions are likely to be scaled back, the underlying case about whether the executive order violates the Constitution will continue through the courts. A final ruling on the
substance of birthright citizenship
may still be months—or years—away.
What do dissenting justices say about this change?
The Court's three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented. They warned that limiting courts' ability to block federal actions could allow potentially unconstitutional policies to harm millions before being properly reviewed.
They argued that in cases affecting civil rights, immigration, healthcare, and more, courts need the power to issue broader protections. Without that, executive actions could go unchecked until higher courts finally weigh in—potentially too late for those already impacted.
How does this ruling expand presidential power?
President Trump called the ruling a 'giant win', saying it strikes back at 'radical left judges' who he believes have blocked his policies unfairly. His administration says the decision restores a proper balance between the executive branch and the courts.
Since his return to office, Trump has pushed dozens of executive actions—many of which have been held up by federal judges. These include cuts to foreign aid, changes to diversity programs, rollbacks on immigration protections, and adjustments to election laws.
This ruling doesn't just apply to birthright citizenship—it makes it much harder for lower courts to freeze other executive orders nationwide, allowing Trump and future presidents to act more freely while legal battles play out.
What happens next in the legal battle over birthright citizenship?
While the Supreme Court ruling doesn't end the legal challenge, it shifts the strategy. The main lawsuit will continue, and eventually, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether ending birthright citizenship is constitutional—possibly as soon as October 2025, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
In the meantime, enforcement will vary depending on which state you're in. Because states issue birth certificates, and many Democratic-led states don't collect data on parents' immigration status, they may resist implementing Trump's policy.
Justice Barrett also acknowledged that states may suffer financial and administrative burdens from the new rule—hinting that lower courts might still justify broader injunctions if specific harms are proven.
What's the broader impact of the ruling?
This ruling marks a shift in American legal and political power. For decades, both Democratic and Republican presidents have clashed with district courts that blocked their actions. The Supreme Court's decision now narrows that power, giving the White House more room to operate.
The Congressional Research Service noted that from Trump's inauguration to April 29, 2025, there were 25 instances where federal courts halted executive actions.
This decision could affect not only immigration, but also climate policies, student loan programs, and workplace rules, giving presidents more control while the courts catch up.
Birthright citizenship is still alive, but the rules are changing
The Supreme Court's ruling on June 27, 2025, doesn't eliminate birthright citizenship—but it paves the way for President Trump to start enforcing his order, and it reshapes how the legal system checks executive power.
The next few months will be crucial as lower courts revise their rulings, and states decide how to respond. Meanwhile, the broader debate over constitutional rights, immigration, and presidential power is far from over.
FAQs:
Q1: What did the Supreme Court decide about birthright citizenship?
The Court allowed Trump's executive order to move forward by limiting court blocks.
Q2: Is birthright citizenship still legal in the U.S. after the ruling?
Yes, but Trump's policy could change how it's applied during ongoing court battles.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
24 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Preamble Not Alterable, But Bharat's Was Changed. Why?": Jagdeep Dhankhar
New Delhi: Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Saturday delivered a poignant critique of the changes made to the Preamble of the Indian Constitution during the Emergency period in 1975, describing it as a betrayal of the document's "Soul" and the vision of its framers. Speaking at an event at the Vice-President's Enclave, marking the presentation of the first copy of 'Ambedkar's Messages' compiled by author and former Karnataka MLC DS Veeraiah, Jagdeep Dhankhar emphasised that a preamble of a constitution was "not changeable" or "not alterbale" as was the base on which the constitution would grow. He claimed that, except for India, no other Preamble of any other constitution has undergone any change, referring to the changes made by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976, adding the words "socialist, secular and integrity". "Preamble of any constitution is its soul. The Preamble of the Indian Constitution is unique... Except Bharat, [no other] Constitution's Preamble has undergone change and why? Preamble is not changeable. Preamble is not alterable. Preamble is the basis on which the constitution has grown. Preamble is the seed of the Constitution. It is soul of the constitution, but this Preamble for Bharat was changed by 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976, adding words Socialist, Secular and Integrity," the Vice President stated. Jagdeep Dhankhar's remarks were made as part of a broader reflection on the constitutional changes during the Emergency, which he described as the "darkest period of Indian democracy". He recounted the suspension of fundamental rights and the imprisonment of political leaders and citizens, questioning the legitimacy of altering the Preamble under such circumstances. "During the Emergency, the darkest period of Indian democracy, when people were behind the bars, fundamental rights were suspended. In the name of those -- we the people -- who were enslaved, we just go for what? Just a flourish of words? It is to be deprecated beyond words," Dhankar stated, drawing on the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, where Justice HR Khanna had affirmed the Preamble's role as a guide to constitutional interpretation, quoting Justice Khanna, "The Preamble serves as a guide to the interpretation of the Constitution and indicates the source from which the Constitution derives its authority -- namely, the people of India." The Vice-President expressed deep concern over the timing and nature of the changes, arguing that they were made when "We the People were bleeding in heart, in soul -- they were in darkness." He criticised the addition of the words "Socialist", "Secular", and "Integrity" during the Emergency as a "Nasoor (festering wound)" that could create upheaval and signal a betrayal of the framers' mindset, underscoring the sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatana and the civilisational ethos of India. "We are changing the soul of the Constitution. We are, as a matter of fact, by this flash of words, added during the darkest period of Emergency -- the darkest period for the Constitution of the country. And in the process, if you deeply reflect, we are giving wings to existential challenges. These words have been added as Nasoor (festering wound). These words will create upheaval. Addition of these words in the Preamble during the Emergency signals betrayal of the mindset of the framers of the Constitution. It is nothing but belittling the civilisational wealth and knowledge of this country for thousands of years. It is sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatana," Dhankhar said. Dhankhar also highlighted the contemporary relevance of BR Ambedkar's messages, urging that they be honoured and respected by Parliamentarians and policymakers. "Dr. BR Ambedkar lives in our hearts. He dominates our mind and touches our soul... Ambedkar's messages bear huge contemporaneous relevance for us. His messages need to permeate down the line, up to the family level. The children must come to know about these messages," he said, calling for a reflection on why "temples of democracy" are being "sacrileged" and "ravaged by disruption." Recalling judicial perspectives, Dhankhar cited Justices Hidayatullah, Hegde, Mukherjee, Shelat, and Grover from the IC Golaknath versus State of Punjab case, who viewed the Preamble as unalterable and embodying the Constitution's fundamental values. He contrasted this with the casual alteration during the Emergency, deeming it an "earthquake" to the constitutional foundation. "The Preamble to our Constitution contains in a nutshell its ideals and aspirations. It is not a mere flourish of words but embodies the objectives which the Constitution seeks to achieve," the Vice-President quoted Justice Hidayatullah, emphasising the gravity of the change. Dhankhar concluded by invoking Ambedkar's final address to the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, urging the nation to prioritise country over creed. "I do not want that our loyalty as Indians should in the slightest way affected by our competitive loyalty, whether that loyalty arises out of our religion, out of our culture or out of our language. I want all people to be Indian first, Indian last and nothing else but Indians," Ambedkar had said, a message Dhankhar urged should be framed and read daily. He warned of the risks of placing creed above country, echoing Ambedkar's anxiety about India's independence being jeopardised again. "This anxiety is deepened by the realization of the fact that in addition to our old enemies in the form of castes and creeds, we are going to have many political parties with diverse and opposing political creeds. Will Indians place the country above their creed? Or will they place creed above the country... I do not know, but this much is certain that if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost forever," Dhankar stated as quoted by Ambedkar.
NDTV
24 minutes ago
- NDTV
Don't Be Surprised If India Repeats Action Upon Provocation: Shashi Tharoor
Ahmedabad: Congress MP Shashi Tharoor on Saturday said foreign countries were told clearly during the post-Operation Sindoor diplomatic outreach that in case of a fresh provocation, India would repeat its action. Speaking at a discussion, he also said that on the 50th anniversary of Emergency, politicians should dedicate themselves afresh to the Constitution and the values of our founding fathers rather than scoring political points. Indian delegations which visited foreign countries in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor managed to tell their hosts that India acted with restraint and responsibility, Tharoor said during a discussion at the Ahmedabad Management Association. Even Colombia, which had issued a statement earlier expressing condolences for those killed in Pakistan, withdrew it, he noted. "In other places, we actually were able to get some very high-placed people to say not only that they respected and supported India's right of self-defence, but they actually commended the restrained manner of our response, that we could have been much I would say that, by and large, they were all very understanding," said the Congress leader. "But I would usually end by conveying that they should not be surprised that if this (terrorist attack) happens again, we too would do this again, and we wanted their understanding in advance. And I believe we left everybody in no doubt about our feelings and our intentions," he added. India signaled from the start that it was not interested in protracted conflict or starting a war, Tharoor further said. "What we were interested in was retribution against terrorists, and we only hit terrorist camps, terrorist facilities, terrorist bases. And from our point of view, that was it," he later told media persons at the venue. India's position was that "if Pakistan hits, we hit back, if it stops, we stop, so that the day they signaled that they would stop, India was willing to stop from the very start, and no one needed to persuade India to stop. "That's what the prime minister has also said. On the other hand, perhaps Pakistan needed persuasion, we don't know what the Americans may have said to Pakistan. If Pakistanis feel they stopped because Americans wanted them to, good for them, that's not a problem for us," he added. The delegation to five countries led by Tharoor was one of the seven multi-party delegations India dispatched to 33 global capitals to reach out to the international community to highlight Pakistan's links to terrorism. Speaking about the Emergency imposed by the erstwhile Congress government 50 years ago, Tharoor said everyone is very clear that it was "a bad period in our history because of a lot of suspensions (of liberties)," and then prime minister Indira Gandhi herself called elections and gracefully accepted their outcome. "I think all of us should use this anniversary to re-dedicate ourselves to the Constitution, to the values of freedom, to the values that our founders fought for and established," he said, adding, "I hope everyone uses this 50th anniversary not to play political games and score political points, but rather to re-dedicate ourselves to those ideals..." On his recent Russia visit, Tharoor said it was an opportunity to touch base with his counterparts and meet his "old friend", Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. "By and large our message (on Operation Sindoor) has been consistent. Fortunately the delegation sent by our government had already been there and met these people, so my task was not a difficult one to reinforce the message," he said. Russia has been India's old and trusted friend and it is always good to maintain these relationships, the Congress leader added. (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
24 minutes ago
- Business Standard
US Senate lowers proposed remittance tax to 1%, spares bank transfers
The US Senate has softened its proposed remittance tax, cutting the rate to 1 per cent and sparing most bank account and card transfers — a move that will come as major relief for millions of Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) and other immigrant communities who regularly send money home. The tax would start applying to remittance transfers made after December 31, 2025 as per the proposal. A new draft of the "One Big Beautiful Bill", released on June 27, shows big changes from the earlier version passed by the House of Representatives. The tax was originally proposed at 5 per cent in the House bill under the Trump administration before being reduced to 3.5 per cent and now further lowered to 1 per cent in the Senate draft. But crucially, this tax will only apply to cash or similar physical payments handed over to money transfer providers. Transfers done through bank accounts or debit and credit cards issued in the US won't be taxed. The bill says the tax is 'limited to cash and similar instruments… only to any remittance transfer for which the sender provides cash, a money order, a cashier's check, or any other similar physical instrument.' And it specifically states the tax will not apply when money comes from 'an account held in or by a financial institution' that meets US regulatory standards, or when funded with 'a debit card or a credit card which is issued in the United States'. Lloyd Pinto, Partner – US Tax, Grant Thornton Bharat, said, 'Senate republicans released their updated draft of the proposed One Big Beautiful Bill Act on Jun 27 and have a self imposed deadline of July 4 to try to pass this bill.... This should come as a huge relief to the NRI community in the US as they will not be subject to this remittance tax if the remittances are made through accounts held with designated US bank and financial institutions or funded via debit or credit cards issued in the US.' India is the largest recipient of remittances from the United States. In 2023-24, India received $32.9 billion from the US alone, accounting for 27.7 per cent of its total inward remittances, according to Reserve Bank of India data. Overall, India's remittances have more than doubled over the past decade, growing from $55.6 billion in 2010-11 to $118.7 billion in 2023-24. Earlier, concerns were raised by immigrant communities and policy experts over the House proposals, as the higher tax rates threatened to increase costs for millions of families depending on cross-border money transfers.
