The Daily Fuckup

The Supreme Court on June 30, 2026, rejected Donald Trump’s attempt to narrow birthright citizenship by executive order. In Trump v. Barbara, the Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. The ruling also dealt with the scope of the injunction entered below, so the decision was not just about the constitutional theory itself but also about the form of relief the lower court had granted. ([supremecourt.gov](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf))

The Court said the Citizenship Clause turns on birth in the United States and subjection to U.S. jurisdiction, and it concluded that children born to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present meet that standard. In the Court’s account, the clause reflects the common-law rule of citizenship by birth, with only narrow exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats. That leaves the administration’s contrary reading of the clause undone as a matter of constitutional interpretation, even though the separate injunction question remained part of the case. ([supremecourt.gov](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf))

The case began after Trump issued Executive Order No. 14160 on January 20, 2025, asserting that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act. The district court entered a preliminary injunction and provisionally certified a nationwide class of children who would be denied citizenship by the order. The Supreme Court took the case before judgment and resolved the citizenship question on June 30. ([supremecourt.gov](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf))

The ruling is a direct setback for the administration’s effort to use executive action to rewrite a constitutional rule that has long been treated as settled law. But the opinion is also narrower than a simple slogan about a total wipeout: the Court’s decision addressed both the merits of the citizenship theory and the limits of the relief ordered below. What remains, after June 30, is the Court’s holding that the order cannot change who is a citizen at birth under the Constitution. ([supremecourt.gov](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf))