Birthright citizenship decision explained

This decision is in response to President Trump’s executive order from January 2025 that sought to limit birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children whose parents have temporary legal status or no permanent lawful status. Specifically, the executive order attempted to exclude two groups of children from automatic birthright citizenship by claiming they were not “subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.” under the 14th Amendment. This exclusion would apply at the time of the child’s birth if the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor green card holder, and the mother is either unlawfully present in the U.S. or on a temporary, short-term visa (such as a student visa, tourist visa, or under Temporary Protected Status, for example).

The executive order prompted multiple federal district courts to issue nationwide preliminary injunctions—or temporary court orders—with judges stating the policy violated the 14th Amendment and more than a century of Supreme Court precedent. Ultimately, the order was blocked by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on July 23, 2025, stating that it was invalid because it contradicted the 14th Amendment. The case then moved to the Supreme Court under Trump v. Barbara.

The executive order would have changed the status of U.S.-born children whose parents are:

• Temporary visa holders, including those sponsored through humanitarian parole
• Guest workers who are filling critical labor shortages
• Asylum-seekers with pending cases who fled violence and persecution
• International students pursuing higher education
• Undocumented immigrants

In each situation, the change would have created significant uncertainty for U.S.-born children and their families, raising complex legal questions about residency, legal status, and future eligibility.

While legal debates often focus on constitutional principles, the practical effects of this SCOTUS decision are best understood through the lives of the families it impacts. Welcome.US CEO Nazanin Ash's family is one example of how birthright citizenship has shaped the lives of generations of Americans.

Nazanin is the daughter of Iranian immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as exchange students on temporary visas before the 1979 Iranian Revolution. They expected to return home after their studies ended, but the revolution made it impossible. Her grandfather was jailed, and her parents’ friends and former classmates were killed. This changed the trajectory of her parents’ lives, and ultimately, her own. In the U.S., they had the opportunity to build a future, contribute to their community, and fully participate in American life, ultimately shaping Nazanin’s upbringing as an American.

Nazanin’s story is not unique; her story reflects the experiences of many American families. Throughout our history, parents have come to the United States as students, temporary workers, refugees, military personnel, or visitors, only to find that circumstances prevented them from returning home. For their U.S.-born children, birthright citizenship provided a clear legal foundation from which they could build their lives as Americans. Today, people with similar family histories serve as teachers, entrepreneurs, members of the military, healthcare workers, business owners, and public servants in communities across the country.

In 1857 during the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, the court ruled that a Black person, whether free or enslaved, could not be a U.S. citizen. Following the Civil War, Congress and the states ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868, guaranteeing citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., with exceptions for children of hostile enemies occupying the country and the children of foreign diplomats. At the time, Native Americans were also excluded. Congress later addressed this, and on June 2, 1924, President Calvin Coolidge signed into law the Indian Citizenship Act, also known as the Snyder Act, which granted Native Americans U.S. citizenship at birth.

In 1898, in the landmark United States v. Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wong, a 21-year-old man born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrant parents. He had been denied re-entry into the country after returning home to San Francisco from a temporary visit to China. The court concluded that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of the nationality of their parents, with limited exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats. Writing for the majority, Justice Gray held that Wong was entitled to birthright citizenship because his parents were permanently domiciled and residing in the U.S., engaged in business, and fully subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Because Wong was born in San Francisco and maintained his permanent legal residence there, his birthright citizenship remained absolute and could not be revoked by the Chinese Exclusion Act.