In a 6-3 ruling, the court held Trump overreached when he tried to usurp the 14th Amendment by executive order at the start of his second term. It was one of the president鈥檚 boldest moves in what would become a sustained campaign to curtail immigration.

鈥淐itizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights 鈥� to freely participate in our political community,鈥� Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. wrote for the majority. 鈥淭he Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to 鈥榚very free-born person in this land.鈥� We keep that promise today.鈥�

Justices Sonia M. Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett concurred. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh agreed in part 鈥� for the executive order to be lawful, he argues, Congress would need to amend or enact legislation 鈥� and justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Jr., and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

鈥淎s interpreted by the Court today, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of 鈥榖irth tourists,鈥� women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home,” Alito wrote. 

While Trump was predicted to lose this battle 鈥� the justices appeared skeptical of the government鈥檚 legal reasoning during oral arguments in April 鈥� immigrant advocates expressed relief about the decision.

“Reaffirming birthright citizenship matters enormously for our schools, where immigrant-origin students are the fastest-growing group of young people 鈥� and the vast majority are American citizens, many by birthright,鈥� said Adam Strom, executive director and co-founder of Reimagining Migration. 鈥淎 decision the other way would have told millions of children, and the classmates beside them, that their place here was conditional.”

Wendy Cervantes, a director at The Center for Law and Social Policy, said the birthright ruling was important for several reasons, primarily because it was 鈥渇undamentally about how our country treats babies in the earliest days of life.鈥� 

She notes it has long ensured all children born in the U.S. have some degree of equal footing, including access to health care and other protections they need from the start. 

鈥淚f the Trump administration had been allowed to restrict birthright citizenship, it would have been yet another way to expand their deportation machine, adding newborns to the list of deportation targets,鈥� Cervantes said. 

Some 320,000 babies were born to unauthorized mothers or those with legal temporary status in 2023, according to the Pew Research Center, representing 9% of all infants born in the United States that year. Roughly would not have qualified for birthright citizenship if Trump鈥檚 executive order had been enacted at that time, the research group found.

Thomas, in writing his dissent, addressed the circumstances that led to the post-Civil War 14th Amendment, namely to ensure that the children of formerly enslaved people would be recognized as citizens.聽

Black people 鈥渨ere entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other Authority.鈥� 

The same cannot be said of the children of foreign-born parents, he wrote. 

鈥淔oreign temporary visitors were attached to their home country, lacked similar bonds to this country, and would not be called upon in time of war,鈥� he found. 鈥淎mericans, consistent with their settler ethos, believed that citizens were the people who called a place home.鈥�

Cecillia Wang, the national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the case in favor of birthright citizenship, said 鈥渢his is a day of celebration,鈥� telling CNN the decision 鈥渞eaffirms one of the fundamental pillars of American life. That all of us who are born on American soil are citizens alike.鈥�

Reacting to the idea that Congress could undo the 14th Amendment, Wang, herself a birthright citizen, said, 鈥淚f they want to try to overturn it by constitutional amendment, good luck to them because they are going against the will of the people of the United States.鈥�

In Tuesday afternoon, Trump claimed that Congress could easily undo the Supreme Court’s ruling without a “long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment,” but that does appear to be a real legislative pathway.

While the justices turned back the president on birthright citizenship, they handed Trump two other critical immigration-related victories late last week. 

The court ended for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants, who were permitted to live and work here because their homelands were deemed too violent or unstable. It also agreed that people waiting just outside the nation鈥檚 border could not claim if they had not physically set foot in the U.S. 鈥� and sanctioned the government鈥檚 ability to turn them away. 

Asylum is a protection from deportation for those who have been persecuted in their home countries or have a well-founded fear of harm there. 

Hundreds of thousands of children have sought this protection in recent years, arriving or with their families. An untold number have been turned back at the border.

In fiscal year 2023, the U.S. granted asylum to people, according to : 26% were under age 18. 

Congress created Temporary Protected Status in 1990 to provide short-term humanitarian relief for those who could not safely return to their country of origin. The high court recognized, in its opinion, that while the program was designed to offer interim help, many TPS recipients had been living in the country for decades.

Last year, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced these protections would terminate within months. Both communities sued the government over the move: Syrians cited procedural flaws and the U.S.鈥檚 failure to assess the safety of their home country and Haitians pointed to prior statements by the president and Noem they said revealed racial animus and bias. 

Lower courts ruled that the government could not proceed but the six conservative justices decided in the administration鈥檚 favor.

Justice Kagan, writing for the minority that included Sotomayor and Jackson, said that Trump鈥檚 comments falsely claiming Haitians ate neighborhood pets 鈥渇airly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into the President鈥檚 resolve to remove Haitians from this country.鈥� 

Tsion Gurmu, a Houston-based immigration attorney and legal director of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, said the decision reflects longstanding racial discrimination. 

鈥淭he majority of the justices held that the litany of racial slurs and stereotypes Trump directed at Haitians were not racist,鈥� she said. 鈥淗owever, as the dissent makes clear, racism is the basis of the administration’s revocation of Haitian TPS and other racist immigration policies enacted by this administration. One of the major takeaways for folks grappling with this decision should be that racial justice is an immigrant rights issue.鈥�

The Trump administration aims to end the program entirely, including for immigrants from Burma (Myanmar), El Salvador, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen.

Cervantes, in comparing the court鈥檚 birthright decision to its move to end TPS for Haitian and Syrian immigrants, just as it did for Venezuelans last year, notes these groups need more than temporary cover. 

鈥淎t the end of the day, the overall takeaway for me is that it demonstrates the importance of creating and protecting pathways to citizenship, since temporary forms can too often become vulnerable,鈥� she said. 鈥淵et, the current administration continues to attempt to block newcomers 鈥� even newborn babies 鈥� from ever being able to access citizenship.鈥�

The 14th Amendment has long been interpreted to guarantee the right of citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil. Three district courts concluded Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order taking away that right was likely unlawful and issued universal preliminary injunctions barring the order from taking effect.

In a 6-3 vote Friday, the high court鈥檚 conservative majority found the lower court judges overstepped. 

鈥淲hen a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” reads the majority opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. 

The court ruled that Trump鈥檚 birthright order would not go into effect for 30 days. During that time, the possibility exists that the plaintiffs could successfully reargue for another nationwide injunction under the new rules set by the Supreme Court. But if they fail, birthright citizenship may no longer be automatic in the 28 states that have not challenged the president鈥檚 directive.

Trump, appearing in the White House briefing room Friday, said 鈥渢he Supreme Court has delivered , the separation of powers and the rule of law.鈥� 

The decision does not address the constitutionality of Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship, considered settled  law for nearly 160 years. But it comes at a time when the president is aggressively trying to extend his powers through a barrage of executive orders that now can no longer be as forcefully blocked across the country by a single federal judge who deems them unlawful or unconstitutional. Judges have issued since Trump took office for a second term in January, the Associated Press reported.

It also coincides with the administration鈥檚 far-reaching and controversial immigration enforcement campaign that has targeted and swept up those without secure legal status, including students. Educators and advocates are particularly concerned about the fate of young children. 

鈥淭he timing could not be worse, with increased ICE activity across the country,” said Adam Strom, executive director of Re-Imagining Migration. “As educators, this makes our jobs even harder. When you fear that your citizenship can be taken away, it’s very hard to learn.”

The ruling came just days after the Supreme Court decided on Monday to to countries other than those in which they were born. Immigrant advocates say both decisions run counter to core American values. 

David C. Baluarte, CUNY School of Law professor and senior associate dean for academic affairs, said if Trump is able to implement his birthright order, some children born in the United States to undocumented parents or those temporarily in the U.S. would be in great jeopardy.

鈥淭hat means they will be an undocumented immigrant here, and everywhere, in perpetuity 鈥� or unless they can convince some country to give them citizenship,鈥� Baluarte said.

Walter Olson, senior fellow at the right-of-center Cato Institute, said now is a 鈥減articularly bad鈥� time for the high court to weaken a critical means to check the power of a 鈥渟cofflaw administration.鈥� 

Olson said the president, through this particular directive, signaled from the outset of his second term that he was seeking to be 鈥渧ery radical鈥� in his authority. He said the birthright issue was a remarkable choice because it was not at all up for debate. 

鈥淭he law was very clear on behalf of birthright citizenship,鈥� Olson said. 鈥淪o, the executive order deserved the immediate unpopularity and outrage that came with it. It鈥檚 settled law.鈥� 

reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Trump argued it 鈥渉as always excluded鈥� people born in the United States but not 鈥渟ubject to the jurisdiction thereof,鈥� including those whose mother was unlawfully present in the country and whose father was not a citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the child鈥檚 birth. 

This same restriction applies to those children born to mothers whose presence in the U.S.聽 is lawful but temporary, including those visiting under the Visa Waiver Program or on a student, work or tourist visa 鈥� if the father is also not a citizen or lawful permanent resident, Trump contends.

Margo Schlanger, law professor and director of the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse at the University of Michigan Law School, said the Supreme Court left open three pathways through which the lower courts can block nationwide policies by the Trump administration they believe to be unlawful.

The first is through a lawsuit filed against the government by a state. The second involves a nationwide class action lawsuit, which can be cumbersome, complicated and time consuming: It鈥檚 often difficult to prove any group of people have enough in common to constitute a class. The third would allow a lower court to 鈥渟et aside鈥� a rule it deems unlawful under the . 

Schlanger notes that every one of the three remaining pathways has 鈥渕ajor鈥� procedural obstacles. She predicts that the state plaintiffs will go back to their district courts and argue that even under these new Supreme Court rules, they still have grounds for a nationwide injunction because that is the only way to guarantee complete relief from an unlawful executive order. 

At the same time, she said, in one or more of the other cases, private plaintiffs might try to expand to a class. Both or either type of case could land the issue back before the Supreme Court 鈥� not for procedural arguments, but to decide the issue on its merits. 

鈥淚 don鈥檛 expect the Trump administration would win at that point,鈥� Schlanger said. 鈥淲hat they were doing is using this case as an opportunity to restrict the authority of the non-Supreme Court federal courts.鈥� 

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said Friday鈥檚 decision leaves Americans with one less tool to fight an 鈥渙ut-of-control鈥� executive branch. 

鈥淭oday, the justices have kneecapped the lower courts鈥� ability to protect Americans from Trump鈥檚 most pernicious policy abuses, making it far more difficult to resolve key questions by requiring additional litigation,鈥� she said in a statement. 鈥淧eople need courts to protect them from this or any other administration wreaking havoc on our nation鈥檚 laws and Americans鈥� lives.鈥�

A federal judge in Washington state today President Donald J. Trump鈥檚 three-day-old executive order to end birthright citizenship. U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, called the order .” He agreed with the four state plaintiffs that it would cause irreparable harm to those denied their right to citizenship, subjected to the risk of deportation and family separation and deprived of federally funded medical care and public benefits that “prevent child poverty and promote child health,” also impacting their education. A separate federal lawsuit is pending in Massachusetts.

鈥� plus San Francisco and Washington, D.C. 鈥� and several civil rights groups are suing to block President Donald J. Trump鈥檚 move to undo birthright citizenship through executive order, a constitutional challenge education leaders say could transform public schools.聽

Trump, who rode a to a second term, argues that to any child whose mother is unlawfully present in the United States or lawfully present on a temporary basis 鈥� such as foreign students 鈥� and whose father is neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. 

The move garnered immediate backlash: Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868. It states that “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.” 

鈥淚f you lose the protections of birthright citizenship and is overturned or somehow ignored, then I think a lot of families would withdraw their children from school out of fear of deportation,鈥� said immigration advocate and policy expert Timothy Boals, referring to the 1982 Supreme Court case which forbids schools from denying enrollment based on a child鈥檚 or their parents鈥� immigration status. 

Conservative forces aligned with the Trump administration have been strategizing an end to Plyler . That potential threat is now being amplified with the affront on birthright citizenship and Tuesday鈥檚 announcement that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are now free to , churches and other once-protected areas. The president has already pledged and a return to .

鈥淲hat that means is more children are denied an education and that’s not good for our society if they end up staying,鈥� said Boals, 鈥渁nd it’s certainly not good for the students wherever they end up going.鈥�

Speaking specifically about the ICE enforcement change, Laura Gardner, who founded Immigrant Connections, a consulting group that works with educators, said the policy will create 鈥渋ntense fear鈥� and could negatively impact student attendance and family engagement. It will also be difficult for teachers, whom she said can鈥檛 do their job when children aren鈥檛 in school. 

鈥淎s educators, we always remind students and families that schools are a safe space and now we can鈥檛 really guarantee that,鈥� she told 社区黑料. 鈥淯ltimately, all this is going to do is hurt innocent children.鈥�

About lived with an unauthorized immigrant parent in 2022, according to the Pew Research Center. About 250,000 babies were born to unauthorized immigrant parents in the United States in 2016, the latest year for which information is available, according to . This represents a 36% decrease from a peak of about 390,000 in 2007.

The president also seeks to prohibit government agencies from issuing documents recognizing an infant鈥檚 citizenship if born under the circumstances he outlined 鈥� or from accepting documents issued by state, local or other authorities acknowledging their citizenship. 

The controversial order could go into effect Feb. 19, leaving children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents, from that date on, without any legal status. 鈥淭hey will all be deportable and many will be stateless,鈥� according to . 

It said Trump has no right to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment, 鈥淣or is he empowered by any other source of law to limit who receives United States citizenship at birth.鈥�

Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups fighting the move, called it a reckless and ruthless repudiation of American values.

鈥淏irthright citizenship is part of what makes the United States the strong and dynamic nation that it is,鈥� he said. 鈥淭his order seeks to repeat one of the gravest errors in American history, by creating a permanent subclass of people born in the U.S. who are denied full rights as Americans.鈥�

Romero鈥檚 remarks harken back to one of the Supreme Court鈥檚 most reviled rulings: . In that 1857 case, the court ruled that enslaved people, including Dred Scott, were not citizens of the United States and, as a result, could not expect any protection from the federal government or courts, according to the . 

The ruling, which pushed the nation toward civil war, was essentially undone by the 13th and 14th amendments. 

New York Attorney General Letitia James lambasted Trump for trying to reverse what has been a hallmark of the nation for more than 150 years.

鈥淭his executive order is nothing but an attempt to sow division and fear, but we are prepared to fight back with the full force of the law to uphold the integrity of our Constitution,鈥� she said. 鈥淎s Attorney General, I will always protect the legal rights of immigrants and their families and communities.鈥�

If Trump鈥檚 order is implemented, the U.S. would join other nations that do not allow birthright citizenship 鈥� or greatly restrict such protections 鈥� including and Australia. 

As of 2022, reported that unauthorized immigrants represented 3.3% of the total U.S. population and 23% of the foreign-born population: Immigrants as a whole comprised 14.3% of the nation鈥檚 population that year, below the record high of 14.8% reached in 1890.

At an inaugural prayer service Tuesday, an Episcopal bishop made to reconsider his views on immigrants and their kids. 

鈥�… they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes and are good neighbors,鈥� the Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde said. 鈥�… I ask you to have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear their parents will be taken away 鈥︹��

The next day Trumpand described Edgar Budde as a 鈥渟o-called Bishop鈥� and a 鈥淩adical Left hard line Trump hater鈥� who was not compelling or smart.