Supreme Court rejects Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship
Supreme Court building (Thanasis/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. by executive order, reaffirming in a 6-3 ruling more than a century of legal precedent and national tradition that babies born on American soil are automatically American citizens.
The decision is a blow to Trump, who had lobbied the court to uphold his Day 1 order and attended oral arguments in the case, becoming the first sitting president to do so.
Trump had argued that children born to unlawful immigrants and temporary visitors, like tourists and foreign students, do not qualify for citizenship under terms of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted after the Civil War to address the status of former slaves and their descendants.
Immigrant advocates and civil liberties groups opposing the policy change warned that it would harm hundreds of thousands of children born every year to non-citizen parents and create a bureaucratic nightmare for older Americans, who would no longer be able to prove citizenship simply with a birth certificate.
An estimated 255,000 children born every year to non-citizen parents would have lost legal status under the order, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Some may have faced difficulty establishing citizenship in any country, effectively being born as “stateless.”
Every lower court to have considered Trump’s unprecedented order deemed it unlawful, issuing injunctions to put it on hold. The high court’s decision preserves the status quo.
The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, says all “persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. Congress later codified the same language in federal citizenship law in 1940.
The administration insisted children born to parents who are not American citizens or legal permanent residents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. because they still owe political “allegiance” to a foreign nation.
The Supreme Court previously rejected that argument in 1898.
“The [14th] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States,” wrote Justice Horace Gray in the landmark Wong Kim Ark v. U.S. decision, addressing the status of children born to noncitizens.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
U.S. Vice President JD Vance meets with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban on April 7, 2026 in Budapest, Hungary. (Photo by Jonathan Ernst – Pool/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Vice President JD Vance is in Hungary on Tuesday, meeting with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, an ally of President Donald Trump, ahead of the country’s April 12 election which could threaten Orbán’s long hold on power.
Orban faces criticism over the decline of democracy in the country as he and his allies have destroyed checks and balances and taken control of the country’s media.
He faces a strong challenge from opposition leader Peter Magyar, who was once part of the prime minister’s party but launched his own in 2024 and began attacking Orbán’s Fidesz party over alleged corruption.
The authoritarian leader has long been a close ally of Trump and was among the first European leaders to endorse him in the 2016 presidential election. Orbán’s nationalist party has become a model for MAGA populists, particularly for its aggressive stance on immigration.
Orban met with Trump three times in 2024, one of those visits coming after Trump won the 2024 election. Orbán has spoken several times at the Conservative Political Action Conference, known as CPAC.
Most recently, Orbán, also an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, visited Trump at the White House in November, where he received a special exemption from sanctions imposed on Russian oil because of its invasion of Ukraine. Hungary is a major importer of Russian energy and the sanctions would have impacted the country’s already weakening economy.
While Hungary is a member of the European Union, Orbán has repeatedly attacked it and clashed with his European counterparts on several issues, including Russia’s war in Ukraine, using his veto power to try to block the EU’s efforts to support Ukraine.
Trump has already endorsed Orban in his reelection bid and has praised him, calling him “strong and powerful.”
During his visit, Vance will hold bilateral meetings with Orbán and publicly deliver remarks on the U.S.-Hungary partnership.
In a statement to ABC News, a spokesperson for Vance said that the vice president is looking forward to his visit and building “on the progress President Trump and Prime Minister Orbán have made on many key issues, including energy, technology, and defense.”
Vance’s trip to Hungary follows Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit in February, during which he reinforced the Trump administration’s support of the embattled Orbán.
“I can say to you with confidence that President Trump is deeply committed to your success because your success is our success, because this relationship we have here in Central Europe through you is so essential and vital for our national interests in the years to come,” Rubio said then.
In early 2025, Vance delivered blistering remarks at the Munich Security Conference, where he made the argument to European lawmakers to pay attention to the interests of conservative voters, take stronger actions on immigration and that Europe was moving towards censorship and away from Democracy.
Vance’s remarks were not well received by many European allies, with German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius saying at the time that it appeared that Vance was comparing parts of Europe to “authoritarian regimes,” calling it “unacceptable.”
U.S. Supreme Court building on March 31, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — For more than a century, an American birth certificate has been a key to unlocking the benefits of American citizenship.
Most parents of newborns on U.S. soil have simply needed proof of birth from a hospital to apply for social security numbers, passports and early life benefits for their children. Into adulthood, the birth certificate has been universally recognized as proof of citizenship for voter registration, employment, home loans and military service.
A landmark case before the Supreme Court on Wednesday will determine whether that longstanding cultural norm and legal precedent will continue, or whether sweeping bureaucratic changes that could impact millions will soon take effect.
President Donald Trump is asking the justices to uphold his Day 1 executive order eliminating birthright citizenship under a novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment and requiring parents to prove their own legal status before citizenship is granted to their children.
All lower courts that have considered the case struck the order down.
The amendment, which was ratified in 1868, says all “persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. Congress later codified the same language in federal citizenship law in 1940.
“Look at the dates of this long ago legislation – THE EXACT END OF THE CIVIL WAR!” Trump posted on social media Monday. “It is about the BABIES OF SLAVES!”
Trump argues children born to parents who are not American citizens or legal permanent residents were never considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. because they still owe political “allegiance” to a foreign nation.
Courts and the government, however, have repeatedly interpreted the 14th Amendment to unambiguously confer citizenship on all children born on U.S. soil, including to babies of unauthorized noncitizens and temporary residents, such as international students, foreign nationals who are in the U.S. on tourist visas and seasonal workers.
“The [14th] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States,” wrote Justice Horace Gray in an 1898 Supreme Court opinion addressing the status of children born to noncitizens.
Immigrant advocates and civil liberties groups insist Trump’s order is blatantly unconstitutional — contrary to the plain text of the Constitution and history of the citizenship clause — and would unleash “chaos” nationwide.
“The impacts on this country would be catastrophic,” said ACLU attorney Cody Wofsy, who is leading the case against the order.
“Most directly, the children who would be stripped of their citizenship would be … subject to arrest, detention and deportation from the only country they’ve ever known,” Wofsy said.
An estimated 255,000 children born every year on U.S. soil to noncitizen parents could lose legal status under Trump’s order, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Some may have difficulty establishing citizenship in any country, effectively being born as “stateless.”
“Babies [born to parents] from countries like Nepal, Afghanistan, Bhutan, where there is not a clear pathway to citizenship in their home countries,” said Anisa Rahm, legal director of the South Asian American Justice Collaborative. “So therefore, where do they belong?”
While the administration insists the order will only apply to children born after it takes effect, legal scholars have warned that a ruling striking down birthright citizenship could have retroactive consequences.
“The citizenship of other Americans could be called into question,” said Winnie Kao, an attorney with the Asian Law Caucus, one of the groups that brought a class-action suit against the administration over the order.
“Vast swaths of U.S. law would need to be reexamined because they are premised on birthright citizenship,” added Kao. “It will also be a total administrative and bureaucratic nightmare for everyone — even for parents who are U.S. citizens.”
An ABC News review of Trump administration plans for implementing a new citizenship policy across federal agencies suggests a more involved and potentially complicated process for new parents than currently exists, if the executive order takes effect.
The Social Security Administration says birth certificates would no longer be sufficient documentation to obtain a new Social Security Number for a newborn.
“SSA will require evidence that such a person’s mother and/or father is a U.S. citizen or in an eligible immigration status at the time of the person’s birth,” the agency wrote in a July 2025 guidance memo.
Parents would first need to submit their own citizenship documentation by mail, phone or online, the agency said. Alternatively, parents could provide a “self-attestation” of citizenship subject to “state and federal penalties for perjury,” according to the memo.
The State Department says it would adopt similar verification measures for passport applicants.
For children born to lawful but temporary immigrants — who would no longer be eligible for citizenship — the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says parents would need to register to obtain the same temporary legal status for their kids.
Federally funded benefits for children, like nutrition assistance and health care services, provided by the Department of Health and Human Services would also require extensive documentation by all parents to prove their children were citizens at birth, the agency said in a memo.
During oral arguments last year in a predecessor case involving Trump’s birthright citizenship order, Justice Brett Kavanaugh — often a key vote in hotly contested cases — voiced concern about whether the government would be able to carry out citizenship checks for parents of the more than 3.6 million babies born in the U.S. each year.
“Federal officials will have to figure that out essentially,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer told the justice under questioning.
“How?” Kavanaugh responded skeptically.
“So, you can imagine a number of ways –” Sauer began.
“Such as?” Kavanaugh quipped. “For all the newborns? Is that how it’s going to work?”
Sauer replied at the time that the administration did not have all the details worked out because courts had blocked the executive order in full.
Polls show the nation is sharply divided over the issue of American citizenship for newborn children of unauthorized immigrants. Half of adults — 50% — say they should receive U.S. citizenship; 49% say they should not, according to an April 2025 Pew Research Center survey.
The U.S Supreme Court is seen on June 25, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday limited law enforcement’s use of sprawling “geofence warrants” that track a suspect using cellphone location data from a broad swath of users, including people with no connection to a crime.
In a 6-3 decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that collection of location data through a geofence warrant implicates the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures — a setback for the federal government, which argued the warrants were a critical law enforcement tool that did not amount to a search at all.
“An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information — even though for only a limited time, and from a third-party tech company,” Kagan wrote for the majority.
Kagan concluded that location data — which she described as “a personal journal of a user’s movements” — resembles other kinds of private materials such as emails, photographs or documents and should be “shielded from the ‘inquisitive eyes’ of the government.”
“Today’s decision follows from the same judicial obligation, to guard against the same risk of undue encroachment. The Fourth Amendment applies, too, when officials tap into Google’s ‘database of physical location information.’ That database is new, but the principle covering it is not: That principle is instead the one our history has given. The Fourth Amendment must, as ever, protect against unjustified governmental intrusion on the privacy of the individual,” Kagan wrote.
In effect, the ruling requires authorities to obtain a narrowly tailored warrant before examining cellphone data of a broad swath of users in an area.
While the Supreme Court ruled that location data is protected by the Fourth Amendment, the justices did not weigh in on the legality of the search that prompted the legal challenge — instead leaving that issue for the lower courts to reexamine.
The landmark decision stemmed from a case involving a 2019 bank robbery in Virginia. Law enforcement was able to track down the robber using a geofence warrant that included the location data for every cellphone within a 150-meter radius of the robbery.
While Okello Chatrie, the suspect and Supreme Court plaintiff, eventually pleaded guilty to the armed robbery and was sentenced to serve 12 years in prison, his lawyers have argued that the warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights because it allowed law enforcement to “to search first and develop suspicions later.”
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett dissented. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Alito argued the ruling was an “irresponsible escapade” and “destabilizes longstanding Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”
