The Supreme Court decided to lift nationwide blocks on President Donald Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
California and 21 other states sued the administration over the executive order. Federal judges in Washington State, Maryland, and Massachusetts temporarily blocked the executive order soon after it was issued.
However, on June 27, the court ruled 6-3 that District Court rulings that temporarily blocked Trump’s order “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”
Here’s what to know about the ruling on birthright citizenship.
What is birthright citizenship?
The 14th Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution in 1868, following the Civil War, and granted citizenship and freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people. The amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Does the ruling end birthright citizenship in the United States?
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority that the lower courts should only review their temporary blocks on Trump’s policy. She explicitly said the court wasn’t deciding whether Trump’s order was constitutional.
The decision means the practice of extending citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States would be set to take effect in 30 days in the 28 states that have not challenged the measure. California was one of the 22 states that sued the Trump administration. The details of how the policy would be implemented were unclear.
How has the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the 14th Amendment in the past?
An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark is considered the historical standard that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents, was denied re-entry to the United States after a trip to China, despite being born within U.S. territory. In a 6-2 decision, the court held that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen because of his birth in the United States, regardless of his parents’ Chinese citizenship.
Trump’s Justice Department has argued that the court’s ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a “permanent domicile and residence in the United States.”
What is the Trump administration’s view on birthright citizenship?
According to Reuters, the administration contends that the 14th Amendment does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas.
Trump’s Agenda47 policy platform states that he wants to clarify the amendment so that it is understood that “U.S. Citizenship extends only to those both born in AND ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States.” USA TODAY previously reported that the clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” most commonly excludes children born to foreign diplomats.
Some 11 million immigrants were in the U.S. illegally in January 2022, according to estimates by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security − a figure that some analysts now place at 13 million to 14 million. Their U.S.-born children are considered by the government to have U.S. citizenship.
Trump has complained about foreign women visiting the United States to give birth and obtain U.S. citizenship for their children.
What do California politicians say about the Supreme Court decision?
California U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D) said the Supreme Court ruling “undermines equal justice under the law.
“Today’s decision emboldens President Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship, designed to stoke fear and persecute immigrant communities,” Padilla wrote. “It also fails every American who looks to the Court to serve as a check to ensure that the executive branch follows the law. The Supreme Court is supposed to serve as a safeguard against presidential overreach, not incentivize it.
California U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D) said the ruling was a “dark day for our democracy,” in a post on X.
In a statement, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, said the ruling will create “administrative chaos for California and others and harm to countless families across our country.”
“The fight is far from over, and we will continue working to ensure this unlawful, anti-democratic executive order never has the chance to be implemented,” Bonta wrote.
How many people gain citizenship through birthright?
According to estimates from the Migration Policy Institute and Penn State’s Population Research Institute, ending birthright citizenship would result in an average of 255,000 children being born in the U.S. without citizenship each year, and would increase the amount of unauthorized migrants living in the U.S. by 2.7 million by 2045, and 5.4 million by 2075.
The Pew Research Center found in 2022 that about 4.4 million U.S.-born children under 18 live with an unauthorized immigrant parent.
How many foreign-born people live in California?
In 2022, more than 26% of people in California were foreign-born. Foreign-born populations also made up more than 20% of New Jersey, New York, and Florida’s total population, according to the Census Bureau.
Foreign-born residents are anyone born outside of the U.S., including naturalized U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, temporary migrants, such as international students, humanitarian migrants, such as refugees or asylees, and unauthorized migrants.
USA TODAY contributed to this report.
(This story was updated with new information.)
This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: After Supreme Court ruling, what to know about birthright citizenship and California
Reporting by James Ward, Bart Jansen and Maureen Groppe, Palm Springs Desert Sun / Palm Springs Desert Sun
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
