Law Supreme Court rejects Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship

By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump’s contentious attempt to limit citizenship at birth for those born on U.S. soil, delivering a major blow to his agenda.

Limited time: Save 25% on NBC News subscription

Get exclusive reporting, live Q&As and ad-free reading.

The court, divided 6-3, ruled that the executive order Trump issued Jan. 20, 2025, the first day of his second term, was unlawful. Five justices said the order fell foul of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which has long been interpreted to bestow birthright citizenship on almost anyone born in the United States.


One justice, conservative Brett Kavanaugh, said the order violated federal law but not the Constitution.

It is the third significant Supreme Court loss for Trump in recent months, following the February ruling that invalidated his sweeping tariffs and Monday’s decision that barred him from immediately firing Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority, including three justices Trump himself appointed, and has ruled in the president’s favor in other important cases.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote there was “scant evidence” in favor of the Trump administration’s radical reimagining of the way the law has been understood for decades.

“Citizenship then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Roberts wrote.

The 14th Amendment was enacted after the Civil War to ensure that everyone, including former slaves, would have those rights, he added. “We keep that promise today,” Roberts said.

Three conservatives would have ruled in Trump’s favor, saying that the 14th Amendment would allow his executive order: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.

The 14th Amendment has long been interpreted as granting citizenship to nearly every person born in the U.S.Francis Chung / Politico via AP
The 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Under Trump’s proposal, birthright citizenship would have been limited to those with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Babies born to temporary visitors or people who entered the country illegally would not be citizens at birth.

In dissent, Thomas wrote that the 14th Amendment was primarily aimed at formerly enslaved Black people.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-nixes-trump-attempt-limit-birthright-citizenship-rcna266935

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/IdsEL

And yes, the Catholic nigger lover. And Chief Cuck Roberts with the side with the Liberals.

 

[Raven of the Burning God]

Without federal funding?

Absolutely. Why would the States keep funding the Federal government for shuttered programs?

It's interesting but it's also a pretty dangerous vector of argumentation for gun rights.

The predictable continued evolution of arms does not make governments less of a threat to the security of a free state.

the founding fathers didn't mean the second amendment to apply to a ton of shit we apply it to

Obviously it must apply to the Federal government; it literally constitutes the Federal government.
Most State constitutions have their own language acknowledging these various rights and limiting State governments from abridging, infringing, etc., so it's pretty clear the Founding Fathers expected State (and Local, etc.) to be similarly restricted.

The founding fathers didn't say 'no "assault weapons!"'

1792 Militia Acts say "yes, everyone should have a military grade assault weapon and high capacity magazine within six months after their 18th birthday". And then goes on to say "also you should organize with your friends to buy artillery, grenade launchers, etc. together".

It was widely grumbled about because the mandated firearms were newer and more expensive than the arms generally in circulation and citizens were expected to personally own and pay for them.

 

[Fatsuit Shinji]

Unlike so many cretins on the right, the left is smart enough to understand the actual rules of the game - ideologically capture the institutions, staff them with your apparatchiks and unleash the deep state against your enemies (all White people).

Will disagree as the minority of the "right" do understand those rules. Unfortunately like we're seeing in this thread; majority of the right will rather get into a circular firing squad and purity spiral out absolutely everyone who isn't 100% ideologically, spiritually and physically the same as them. The left understands the concept and implementation of first capturing those institutions, staffing them, locking out the opposition. And then start purity spiraling with no effective opponents to take advantage of their metaphorical circular executions.

 

[Fount of BadSpeak]

Well, I didn't think this would go through, and the split is actually worse than I thought. I actually thought Kavanagh would vote yes, but even he pussied out in the end. It's amazing just how bad Trump's SCOTUS picks have been, especially Barrett, and that wasted opportunity really epitomizes both of his terms thus far, but really the blame is on 2/3 of the SCOTUS for saying that the concept of an American citizen is well and truly meaningless. America is just an economic zone, where any foreigner can shit out a baby and instantly have their whole family become de facto citizens, even if only on paper.

Ultimately, however, this changes nothing. There was no political solution before, and there is no political solution now.

 

[Blewberry Nausea]

Well, I didn't think this would go through, and the split is actually worse than I thought. I actually thought Kavanagh would vote yes, but even he pussied out in the end. It's amazing just how bad Trump's SCOTUS picks have been, especially Barrett, and that wasted opportunity really epitomizes both of his terms thus far, but really the blame is on 2/3 of the SCOTUS for saying that the concept of an American citizen is well and truly meaningless. America is just an economic zone, where any foreigner can shit out a baby and instantly have their whole family become de facto citizens, even if only on paper.

Ultimately, however, this changes nothing. There was no political solution before, and there is no political solution now.

Fount, they pozzed me Fount. They put ten Beaners in my butthole Fount. Now?

Now I am coming to put beaners in your butthole @Fount of BadSpeak I am going to fill you with beaners

GOD BLESS AMERICA

 

[Rekeita's Kidneys]

Yes, it's the fucking Jews forcing the Catholic Church to be. Subversive. It was the Catholics. He burnt down Constantinople. Three times the Jews forced them to do it.
Do not look at the biggest funders of refugee resettlement. It's not the Catholic Church. Nope.

Little bit o' COG, little bit o' ZOG

 

[regalterry]

Will disagree as the minority of the "right" do understand those rules. Unfortunately like we're seeing in this thread; majority of the right will rather get into a circular firing squad and purity spiral out absolutely everyone who isn't 100% ideologically, spiritually and physically the same as them.

So many on the right don't want to win, they want to be the beautiful losers, masturbating themselves, imagining their glorious last stand as they die on their virtuous pedestal of "liberals are the true racists!" optics, so noble and pure that even the left will acquiesce and say "At least he stuck by his principles."

Naturally, the left could give less of a shit about the right's version of useful idiots (useful for the left, that is), and will treat them as useful idiots are always treated by the winning side.

Ultimately, however, this changes nothing. There was no political solution before, and there is no political solution now.

I guess it changes the tone of the discourse. At least now we can point out at the cuckservatives that every legal attempt to stop the destruction of the US has been tried, and every attempt was sabotaged.

Not that I think it will do much good, but at least it will shut them up for a few precious moments.

 

[You Can't Un'Ape The Doe]

It goes without saying but it seems so idiotic, I don't see how anyone could possibly justify this unless they legitimately want to destroy America.

What degree of wiggle-room is there in dealing with birthright citizenship? From what I can tell the parents don't get citizenship under the ruling, so they can presumably still be deported, but what happens to the child then? Are the parents forced to be separated from the child, or can the child leave the country with the parents and still have citizenship? Are they put into an orphanage type system or what?

I assume the details aren't necessarily worked out yet, but is there any way to mitigate the issues of birthright citizenship even with this ruling? Of course I don't doubt that even the possible "best-case scenario" where the cons are somehow mitigated, it would eventually be challenged until America is even more fucked.

 

[frozen_runner]

It goes without saying but it seems so idiotic, I don't see how anyone could possibly justify this unless they legitimately want to destroy America.

What degree of wiggle=room is there in dealing with birthright citizenship? From what I can tell the parents don't get citizenship under the ruling, so they can presumably still be deported, but what happens to the child then? Are the parents forced to be separated from the child, or can the child leave the country with the parents and still have citizenship? Are they put into an orphanage type system or what?

I assume the details aren't necessarily worked out yet, but is there any way to mitigate the issues of birthright citizenship even with this ruling? Of course I don't doubt that even the possible "best-case scenario" where the cons are somehow mitigated, it would eventually be challenged until America is even more fucked.

"Citizen" children are deported with their illegal parents until they reach the age of majority. Then the whole family chain migrates into the country, gets on welfare, and applies for green cards.

 

[Smar Mijou]

Goddammit I just want my country to be free from illegals, niggers, and illegal niggers.

 

[Angry Alt Right Nerd]

Goddammit I just want my country to be free from illegals, niggers, and illegal niggers.

It's OK, once everyone is legal, there will be no more illegals

 

[You Can't Un'Ape The Doe]

It's OK, once everyone is legal, there will be no more illegals

Seems like you only solved half of his problems

 

[Marvin]

From what I can tell the parents don't get citizenship under the ruling, so they can presumably still be deported, but what happens to the child then? Are the parents forced to be separated from the child, or can the child leave the country with the parents and still have citizenship? Are they put into an orphanage type system or what?

It's a good question. Pretty sure there's no precedent saying the parents get to stay. Only poorly considered administrative policy that can be rewritten shortly.

Though what would it mean for a six year old to assert their rights as a "citizen"? Probably stick them in foster care, which is awful.

"Citizen" children are deported with their illegal parents until they teach the age of majority. Then the whole family chain migrates into the country, gets on welfare, and applies for green cards.

Well only because we permit that. There's no constitutional requirement to permit that.

We could respond with an Anchor Baby Accommodation Act which boots out the families and permanently bans them from the US.

If the anchor baby wants to claim their "birthright" given to them by a poorly considered amendment from the 1860s, they can do it with zero support from, and zero benefit to, their parasite family. I don't know how valuable having an unaccompanied 18 year old in the US is, I'm sure there's some espionage value, I guess, but otherwise it can't be much without all the chain migration and accompanying bullshit.

Doesn't solve the problem, but we can at least make it as onerous as possible.

 

[You Can't Un'Ape The Doe]

Though what would it mean for a six year old to assert their rights as a "citizen"? Probably stick them in foster care, which is awful.

Yeah that's what is probably most likely. These types of decisions certainly come from people who can't differentiate intent with incentives and implementation. If you asked someone "should we have illegal immigrant kids put into foster care away from their parents?" They would screech "NO," yet at the same time they can support birthright citizenship which accomplishes precisely that.

 

[Marvin]

Yeah that's what is probably most likely. These types of decisions certainly come from people who can't differentiate intent with incentives and implementation. If you asked someone "should we have illegal immigrant kids put into foster care away from their parents?" They would screech "NO," yet at the same time they can support birthright citizenship which accomplishes precisely that.

And especially when they won't allow an amendment to go through.

They're forcing their rhetorical opponents to inflict cruelty on children because they're shitheads.

"no damnit we're going to flood your country will illegals and if you want to oppose that you'll need to handle unaccompanied minors" - some empathetic asshole

I'm reminded of my local politicians opposing ICE building holding facilities in our states. OK so when ICE nabs an illegal, they have to go somewhere hours away, like North Carolina or something. OK so the illegal's family who is still here has to drive 8 hours or some shit to visit their relative before they're deported. Very empathetic, much caring.

 

[You Can't Un'Ape The Doe]

They're forcing their rhetorical opponents to inflict cruelty on children because they're shitheads.

I'm not sure how much of it can be prescribed to intentional malice by political ideologues, and how much of it is just people being genuinely mentally retarded and unable to compute incentive structures. I'd tend to more so attribute it to stupidity rather than malice, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some politicians fully aware of the natural consequences of this type of legislation who support it precisely as a political tool to fuck over the opposition.

 

[Smar Mijou]

It's a good question. Pretty sure there's no precedent saying the parents get to stay. Only poorly considered administrative policy that can be rewritten shortly.

Though what would it mean for a six year old to assert their rights as a "citizen"? Probably stick them in foster care, which is awful.

Well only because we permit that. There's no constitutional requirement to permit that.

We could respond with an Anchor Baby Accommodation Act which boots out the families and permanently bans them from the US.

If the anchor baby wants to claim their "birthright" given to them by a poorly considered amendment from the 1860s, they can do it with zero support from, and zero benefit to, their parasite family. I don't know how valuable having an unaccompanied 18 year old in the US is, I'm sure there's some espionage value, I guess, but otherwise it can't be much without all the chain migration and accompanying bullshit.

Doesn't solve the problem, but we can at least make it as onerous as possible.

We all know some leftist-funded NGO would just provide a lawyer for the little anchor baby bastard anyway.

 

[WhiteBoySummer]

These jackasses. This was their chance to enshrine every other decision they've made. In one or two generations, the demographic makeup of the united states will be changed irreversibly. The new "americans" will not hesitate to vote in spiteful mutants, and to change this country's laws as they please.

The Supreme Court's fancy arguments won't matter. Their textual analysis won't matter. Their ivy league degrees won't matter. We'll be lucky if the average "american" can read by 2100. It's all downstream of demography.

Of course, my use of "will" above assumes there is nothing left to be done. Not true.

 

[Chuckwagon]

Yes, (((Catholics))) are indeed the problem.

Like everyone and everything else in the West they picked up a terrible (((parasite))) infection. I think they'll fight it off though.

Yes, it's the fucking Jews forcing the Catholic Church to be. Subversive. It was the Catholics. He burnt down Constantinople. Three times the Jews forced them to do it.
Do not look at the biggest funders of refugee resettlement. It's not the Catholic Church. Nope.

Jews? In MY Catholic immigration/refugee resettlement NGOs?? It's more likely than you think, ackshually!



Also, threadly reminder that it was a bisexual Jewish communist (Liberation Theology variant) who was directly responsible for majorly fucking up Vatican II & introducing the borderline dual covenant, philosemitic, 'so open-minded your brain falls out' poz in there together with other fellows like John Oesterreicher (a yuge Zionist, as expected). He also quit the priesthood and married (most shockingly of all given this turn of events, a woman) right after his subversive work was done.

Also also, if the Orthodox didn't want Constantinople to get sacked, maybe they shouldn't have gone on a similarly thorough and bloody massacre of the Latin community (down to selling anyone who survived & hadn't gotten out of dodge into Turkish slavery) in said city first. Pretty much brought that shit down on their own heads - play gaynigger games, win gaynigger prizes.

Well, I didn't think this would go through, and the split is actually worse than I thought. I actually thought Kavanagh would vote yes, but even he pussied out in the end. It's amazing just how bad Trump's SCOTUS picks have been, especially Barrett, and that wasted opportunity really epitomizes both of his terms thus far, but really the blame is on 2/3 of the SCOTUS for saying that the concept of an American citizen is well and truly meaningless. America is just an economic zone, where any foreigner can shit out a baby and instantly have their whole family become de facto citizens, even if only on paper.

Ultimately, however, this changes nothing. There was no political solution before, and there is no political solution now.

Tbh, that this was a 6-3/5-4 rather than a 8-1 case with only Thomas dissenting (as it would have been had it happened 20-30 years ago) is already an improvement over my expectations. I can't imagine the Bush administration or older Republicans even trying here.

 

[frozen_runner]

Doesn't solve the problem, but we can at least make it as onerous as possible.

What a coincidence. That's what I'm thinking.

But I'm not concerned about the welfare of any of these people, including the minor, Paperwork Americans. Nor do I care if other people stay within the law to get the desired result.

I would like for there to be a legal way to stop this invasion, though.

 

[Do Not Touch Me Pls]

Meanwhile KOSA would had been passed without fail.