The US Supreme Court on 30 June delivered two rulings that will shape the country’s immigration and culture-war debates. By a 6-3 vote, the justices struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are in the country unlawfully or on temporary visas. In a separate 6-3 decision, the court upheld state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that bar transgender women and girls from competing on female school and college sports teams. The birthright citizenship ruling preserves a constitutional guarantee in place since 1868; the sports ruling empowers more than two dozen Republican-led states to enforce similar bans.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority in Trump v. Barbara, held that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause plainly covers all children born on US soil, regardless of parental status. He was joined by the court’s three liberal justices and, in part, by conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who concurred on statutory grounds. The three dissenting justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch—argued that the amendment was intended only for freed slaves and that the executive order was consistent with its original meaning. Viewed from Washington, the ruling represents a significant defeat for the Trump administration’s immigration agenda, which had made ending birthright citizenship a central promise. The White House called the decision ‘too bad’ and urged Congress to pass legislation, though any statutory change would face steep constitutional hurdles. Civil rights organisations and many legal scholars welcomed the ruling as a reaffirmation of a foundational principle.

In the sports cases, Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the majority that states may ‘maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females’ without violating the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX. The court’s three liberal justices dissented on the constitutional question, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor arguing that the majority had acted on ‘assumptions rather than facts’ and had denied transgender students a fair hearing. The ruling does not require states to impose bans, but it validates the laws already enacted in 27 states. President Trump celebrated the outcome as a ‘big win,’ while LGBTQ advocacy groups described it as a setback for transgender youth. In Europe and other regions, where sports governing bodies have also grappled with eligibility rules, the decision is likely to reinforce existing restrictions, such as those adopted by the International Olympic Committee ahead of the 2028 Los Angeles Games.

The twin rulings highlight the court’s conservative majority’s willingness to both constrain and enable the president’s agenda. Earlier in the term, the justices struck down Trump’s global tariffs and blocked his attempt to fire a Federal Reserve governor, but they also expanded his power to dismiss officials at independent agencies and upheld other immigration restrictions. The birthright citizenship decision affects an estimated 250,000 newborns each year and maintains the US as one of roughly three dozen countries that grant unconditional citizenship by birth. The sports ruling, meanwhile, leaves unresolved the status of states like California and New York that permit transgender athletes to compete according to gender identity, setting up potential future litigation.

The court’s term has now concluded. On birthright citizenship, the constitutional question is settled, and any legislative effort would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states—a near-impossible threshold in the current political climate. On transgender sports, the ruling is expected to be applied swiftly in lower courts, and additional challenges to inclusive state policies are anticipated. The debate over both issues will now shift to the political branches and the 2026 midterm elections.