The Birthright Citizenship Order and Where the Litigation Stands

What Executive Order 14160 said

The order provided that a child born in the United States is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore not a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act, when the mother was unlawfully present, or lawfully but only temporarily present, and the father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. It directed agencies not to issue or accept documents recognizing the citizenship of such children born after February 19, 2025.

The litigation, in order

1. Early 2025: several district courts, in suits by individuals, organizations and states, enjoined the order nationwide.
2. June 27, 2025: the Supreme Court held that universal injunctions likely exceed the federal courts’ authority and stayed those injunctions to the extent they went beyond the plaintiffs, without deciding whether the order was lawful (Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025)).
3. Summer 2025: a district court in New Hampshire provisionally certified a nationwide class of children who would be denied citizenship and preliminarily enjoined the order as to the class.
4. June 30, 2026: on certiorari before judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed (Trump v. Barbara).

What Trump v. Barbara held

The Court held 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 citizens at birth under the Citizenship Clause. It read the Clause in light of the English common-law rule of citizenship by birth on the soil, the repudiation of Dred Scott, and its own 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which recognized only narrow exceptions such as the children of foreign diplomats.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett and Jackson. Justice Jackson also filed a concurring opinion, and Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment and dissented in part. Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissented.

Executive Order 14418 (August 6, 2026)

Five weeks later, a new order directed agencies not to issue or accept documents recognizing citizenship for a person neither of whose parents is a citizen when any of the following applies:

• either parent is an “alien enemy,” defined to include members of designated foreign terrorist organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists;
• either parent is a foreign government employee: ambassadors, embassy or consular employees who are nationals of that country, officials of a foreign government, and employees of international organizations with immunity;
• a parent engaged in a commercial transaction to obtain birthright citizenship for the child, including arranging the mother’s presence to give birth or a surrogacy arrangement, or engaged in fraud to obtain citizenship; or
• the person is born in a U.S. territory where federal statute does not confer citizenship.

Some of these categories track long-standing law: children of diplomats with immunity have never been citizens by birth, and people born in American Samoa are U.S. nationals rather than citizens at birth (8 U.S.C. § 1408). Others go further than the exceptions Barbara described. An executive order binds agencies, not courts, and how far these categories can reach will ultimately be decided in litigation.

Sources

• Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365, 609 U.S. ___ (June 30, 2026)
• Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025)
• Executive Order 14160, 90 FR 8449; Executive Order 14418, 91 FR 51991
• 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a); 8 U.S.C. § 1408