On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. ___ (2026).
The case arose from Executive Order No. 14160, signed by President Trump on January 20, 2025, which declared that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully present or only temporarily present do not qualify as citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause—on the theory that such children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Several affected parents challenged the order in court, arguing it violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The District Court agreed, certified a nationwide class, and enjoined enforcement of the order, after which the Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment.
The Court held, 5-4, that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are therefore citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts grounded the decision in the English common law doctrine of jus soli (right of the soil)—the principle that citizenship follows the place of birth, not the parents’ status or allegiance. The majority reaffirmed and applied the Court’s 1898 precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that the Fourteenth Amendment was “declaratory” of the common law rule, excluding only narrow categories such as children of foreign ambassadors and members of sovereign tribal nations.
The majority squarely rejected the Government’s argument that American citizenship had evolved to require a higher form of allegiance tied to parental domicile, calling this view “dramatically revisionist” and unsupported by historical evidence spanning from 1776 to 1868. The Court also noted that words central to the Executive Order—such as “mother,” “father,” “lawful,” and “temporary”—do not appear anywhere in the text of the Citizenship Clause, underscoring that parental status simply was not part of the Framers’ design. Chief Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson; Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, and Kavanaugh filed separate dissenting or partially dissenting opinions.
What This Means for You
The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Barbara settles a question that had created significant uncertainty for schools across the country. The ruling confirms that children born in the United States are citizens at birth regardless of their parents’ immigration status—a rule that is now binding on all states and localities.
Schools that had placed related policy questions on hold should now revisit those matters in light of the Court’s ruling. Three areas warrant particular attention:
1. Enrollment and Access Policies. Any policy language conditioning enrollment rights on parental citizenship or immigration status—beyond what Plyler v. Doe already requires—should be reviewed and revised to ensure consistency with the Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted in Trump v. Barbara.
2. Data Collection and Recordkeeping. Institutions that added data fields for parental immigration status in connection with birth-certificate review should consider whether to revise those procedures in light of this ruling.
3. Tuition and Financial Aid. Postsecondary institutions should confirm that tuition and financial aid policies clearly distinguish between U.S. citizen students and non-citizen students, whose eligibility for in-state rates and state-based aid continues to be governed by applicable state and federal law.
While the Court’s holding is nationally binding, the practical implications of this decision may vary depending on state law and institutional context. If you have questions about how these developments could impact your state, school, or district, please reach out to the authors or your Husch Blackwell attorney.