U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship in 6-3 Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday reaffirmed the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, ruling 6-3 that children born on American soil automatically gain U.S. citizenship regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The decision, which centers on the 14th Amendment, marks the second time the justices have upheld birthright citizenship, with Chief Justice John Roberts emphasizing that “citizenship then and now was the right to have rights.”

What Does the 14th Amendment Say?

The 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to almost all persons born or naturalized in the United States. The court’s majority, led by Roberts, traced this provision back to the nation’s founding, noting that the framers of the 14th amendment extended the promise to every free born person in this land. The decision explicitly excluded only children of foreign diplomats and certain Indian tribes, which were not subject to the laws of the United States at the time.

Legal experts highlighted the historical precedent. The 1898 case Wong Kim Ark established that children born in the U.S. to Chinese parents were entitled to citizenship. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson responded to some of the themes in the Thomas dissent.

How Did the Court Reach This Decision?

The 6-3 vote reflected deep ideological divisions. Five justices joined Roberts’ majority opinion, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed only that federal legislation enacted in the 1950s grants automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a 91-page dissent, argued the amendment only applied to former slaves and their descendants.

Cecillia Wang, legal director of the ACLU, who successfully argued the case at the Supreme Court, said President’s Trump failed attempt to limit birthright citizenship was transparent. She emphasized that it is part of how our country rejected caste distinctions and championed freedom and equality.

What About the Other Cases Decided Tuesday?

The court also ruled on two other high-profile cases. In a 6-3 decision, it upheld state laws that prevent transgender athletes from playing on women’s sports teams, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh asserting that such policies protect safety and fairness. Meanwhile, the court struck down decades-long limits on the amount of money political parties can spend on candidates, a move expected to increase campaign finance flows.

Why Does This Matter?

The ruling has significant implications for immigration policy and civil rights. Legal scholars like Yale’s Akhil Amar called it a classic example of the court sticking to the original meaning of the Constitution, while University of Virginia’s Amanda Frost expressed concern over the “fringe argument” gaining mainstream traction. The decision also echoes the legacy of Wong Kim Ark, whose great-grandson, Norman Wong, described the ruling as a “testament to his lifelong fight for justice.”

With the court now poised to hear more challenges to immigration and civil rights laws, the ruling underscores the enduring debate over the scope of the 14th Amendment. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in her dissent on the transgender sports case, the benefits of sports are “immense,” but she wrote that these laws unconstitutionally deny transgender athletes the opportunity to play with their peers.