The US Supreme Court on 30 June ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to parents without legal status or with temporary presence violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause, rooted in the common law principle of jus soli and affirmed in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark precedent, does not permit the president to unilaterally redefine birthright citizenship. The ruling permanently blocks the order, which had been suspended by lower courts since January 2025, and drew a rare courtroom appearance by Trump during oral arguments in April.

The majority, comprising six justices, argued that citizenship by birth is a constitutional guarantee, not an administrative concession. Dissenting justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, contended that the clause requires more than mere physical presence and that automatic citizenship incentivises irregular immigration and so-called birth tourism. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while voting with the majority against the order, held that it was unlawful but not unconstitutional, leaving open a potential legislative path. Viewed from Washington, the decision represents a significant but narrow check on executive authority, as the court has otherwise consistently upheld the administration’s immigration enforcement measures.

While the birthright citizenship order was blocked, the administration has accelerated deportations and tightened legal immigration pathways. According to an analysis of federal immigration data by US investigative journalists, deportations of unaccompanied minors have tripled compared to the first Trump term, with immigration courts issuing over 10,000 removal orders per month for minors. US immigration authorities are constructing a 528-bed holding centre next to a Louisiana airport that serves as the nation’s largest deportation hub, designed to streamline the removal of families and children. The Department of Homeland Security, now led by Secretary Markwayne Mullin, has shifted from high-profile raids to a quieter but sustained push, with internal quotas reportedly raised to 2,000 arrests per day. The Laken Riley Act, enacted in early 2025, expanded mandatory detention for a range of offences, and the administration has imposed stricter vetting for marriage-based green card applicants, ending the traditional preferential treatment for spouses of US citizens.

The Supreme Court’s term that ended last week has been described by analysts at a Washington-based migration policy institute as the most robust judicial affirmation of executive power over immigration in the court’s history. The justices have allowed the termination of Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, Haitians, and Syrians; upheld the deportation of asylum seekers to third countries; and granted immigration officers greater leeway to detain green card holders accused of crimes. European observers note that the birthright citizenship ruling, while symbolically significant, leaves intact a vast administrative architecture that can sharply restrict both irregular and legal immigration. In Latin America, governments are bracing for increased returns of nationals, with over 100 Venezuelans deported just before twin earthquakes in June now reported missing.

The birthright citizenship ruling is final and cannot be appealed, but Republican lawmakers have signalled they may pursue a constitutional amendment or legislation to restrict the right. Meanwhile, the administration continues to expand detention capacity and enforcement operations, with the Louisiana facility expected to open by August. The broader legal landscape remains fluid, as lower courts still weigh challenges to other executive actions, but the Supreme Court’s pattern suggests that most administrative immigration measures will survive judicial review.