标签： North America

In a landmark decision that reaffirms a core tenet of American citizenship law, the US Supreme Court has formally rejected former (second-term) President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to strip birthright citizenship from children born to undocumented immigrants and temporary residents in the United States. The ruling, handed down Tuesday in Washington D.C., upholds the long-standing constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship that has stood for nearly 160 years.

Writing the majority opinion for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized the enduring purpose of the nation’s citizenship framework. “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land’ … We keep that promise today,” Roberts wrote. The final vote split 6-3, an unusual alignment that saw three of the court’s conservative justices join all three liberal justices to form the majority supporting the ruling.

The constitutional guarantee at the center of the case dates back to 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in the aftermath of the American Civil War. Drafted primarily to secure citizenship for formerly enslaved Black people, the amendment’s Citizenship Clause clearly 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.”

Trump’s controversial executive order was signed on January 20, 2025, the very first day of his second presidential term. The order argued that children born to people living in the U.S. without legal authorization or on temporary visas do not fall under the “jurisdiction” requirement laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore do not qualify for automatic citizenship under either the Constitution or the federal Immigration and Nationality Act.

The policy faced immediate legal pushback: multiple affected parents filed suit against the order, both on their own behalf and as representatives of their children. All lower courts hearing the case ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the executive order was never allowed to go into effect while legal challenges moved through the court system.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump issued a statement on his social media platform Truth Social criticizing the decision. “[This is] too bad for our country,” he wrote. He went on to call for congressional action to advance his policy goal, claiming that “we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation … Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship.”

The ruling marks a major resolution to one of the most high-profile immigration policy clashes of Trump’s second term, cementing the legal status of birthright citizenship for the foreseeable future while reigniting debate over the role of Congress in revisiting America’s century-old citizenship rules.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025-2026 term closed with a high-profile ruling that delivered a rare setback to former President and current 2026 candidate Donald Trump, but the term as a whole cemented a decades-long shift toward a conservative-dominated bench that has vastly expanded executive authority — a legacy Trump first shaped during his first term in office.

On Tuesday, the court ruled against Trump’s longstanding push to restrict birthright citizenship, a foundational 14th Amendment principle that has granted automatic U.S. citizenship to nearly all people born on American soil for more than 125 years. The 5-4 decision rejected Trump’s attempt to strip citizenship from children born to temporary visitors and undocumented immigrants, upholding the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship established in the 1898 Supreme Court precedent *United States v. Wong Kim Ark*.

In a muted response compared to his past reactions to unfavorable court rulings, Trump called the decision “too bad for our country” and threw his support behind congressional legislation that would enact his proposed restrictions. However, legislative prospects for such a bill remain virtually nonexistent: Democrats hold a majority in the Senate and have pledged to block any such measure, and even if it were to pass both chambers, legal scholars widely agree it would fail to survive constitutional challenge.

This defeat for Trump is far from representative of the term’s overall trajectory. The court’s 6-3 conservative majority, three of whom were appointed by Trump during his first presidential term, has delivered a string of landmark victories that expand executive power and shield sitting and future presidents from criminal prosecution for official actions. Even in cases where the court rejected some of Trump’s most extreme policy overreaches, the splits across the bench revealed that deviations from the pro-Trump conservative line are rare and limited.

Tuesday’s birthright ruling was not the only time a faction of conservative justices joined the court’s three liberal members to rein in Trump’s broader policy agenda. Back in February, a 6-3 majority — including two of Trump’s own appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — struck down Trump’s attempt to impose sweeping new tariffs on U.S. trading partners using only existing executive authority. The ruling aligned with longstanding Supreme Court precedent that holds major new economic policy changes require explicit congressional approval. For that defeat, Trump responded with far sharper anger, calling the three conservative justices who crossed lines “lapdogs” and saying he was “absolutely ashamed” of their decision during an impromptu press conference.

In December, another cross-ideological bloc, consisting of Chief Justice John Roberts plus Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined liberals to block Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Chicago to enforce federal immigration law against the wishes of Illinois’ governor and Chicago’s mayor. The ruling upheld a lower court’s decision, putting an early stop to a rare attempt by a sitting president to use the National Guard against the objections of state and local leaders.

In each of these high-profile losses, legal experts note, Trump and his legal team pushed far beyond the traditional bounds of executive power, relying on novel, rarely tested legal theories to justify actions that ran counter to decades of precedent. His attempt to roll back birthright citizenship directly contradicted 125 years of Supreme Court interpretation of what most constitutional scholars have long viewed as the 14th Amendment’s clear language.

Beneath these high-profile headline-grabbing cases, the term produced a steady stream of incremental but substantive rulings that expanded presidential power and advanced conservative legal goals, aligning with Trump’s policy priorities. Kate Shaw, a constitutional law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, summed up the court’s trajectory: “There will be occasional deviations, but I think this is a very strong, very conservative court with the broadest conception of presidential power that we have ever seen.”

Earlier this week, for example, the court’s six conservative justices ruled that presidents can dismiss members of independent federal regulatory agencies over purely policy disagreements. While the court carved out a narrow exception for Federal Reserve board members to preserve the central bank’s monetary policy independence, the ruling gives Trump and all future presidents far greater control over the sprawling federal bureaucracy. Now, presidents will be able to handpick officials who set labor, election, communications, environmental, and financial regulations, a massive shift in executive influence over domestic policy.

Even on immigration, the issue at the heart of Trump’s political identity for more than a decade, the birthright loss obscures major victories for the president. Last week, the court upheld Trump’s revocation of Temporary Protected Status for Haitian and Syrian immigrants, many of whom have resided in the U.S. for more than a decade following natural disasters and civil conflict in their home countries. The court also tightened asylum rules, requiring that asylum seekers be physically present on U.S. soil to file a claim, a change that makes it far harder for refugees to gain protection.

The court also delivered major advantages to Trump and the Republican Party ahead of the 2026 midterm congressional elections. On the same day the birthright ruling was handed down, the court issued a less-noticed decision that loosened federal campaign finance restrictions, lifting caps on how much national political parties can spend directly on their candidates. With the Republican National Committee holding more than $125 million in cash reserves while the Democratic National Committee carries substantial debt, the ruling gives Trump and Republican candidates a significant financial edge in the upcoming elections.

In April, the court’s conservative majority struck down a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, ruling that congressional districts drawn to give racial minorities greater electoral representation are inherently unconstitutional. That decision has already allowed Republican-controlled state legislatures across the South to redraw U.S. House districts to favor Republican candidates, shifting the partisan landscape of competitive House races ahead of November.

While Trump has expressed public frustration with occasional unfavorable rulings — including a Monday decision that declined to block counting of mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrive after — the net impact of the term has been to grant him more executive authority than any previous U.S. president has held. With ongoing rumors that one of the court’s senior conservative justices is considering retirement in the coming year, Trump, if he wins re-election in November, could soon have the chance to cement his legacy on the federal judiciary for decades to come.

A decades-old foundational principle of U.S. citizenship law remained intact after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling upholding birthright citizenship, prompting the BBC to reach out to ordinary Americans across the country to capture their reactions to the high court’s decision. Birthright citizenship, which grants automatic U.S. citizenship to nearly all people born on American soil, is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirmed this long-standing interpretation of the nation’s founding document. The BBC’s outreach captured a wide spectrum of opinions that mirror the deep partisan and cultural divides that shape contemporary debates over immigration and national identity in the United States. Many respondents who backed the ruling emphasized that birthright citizenship is a core part of America’s identity as a nation of immigrants, arguing that it upholds the country’s long-standing promise of opportunity to people born within its borders regardless of their parents’ immigration status. These respondents framed the Supreme Court’s decision as a victory for constitutional originalism and equal treatment under the law, noting that the 14th Amendment was explicitly written after the Civil War to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people and establish a clear standard for birthright nationality. On the other side of the debate, critics of the ruling expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court did not revisit the issue, arguing that the current policy incentivizes illegal immigration and puts unfair strain on local government resources. These respondents contended that the 14th Amendment’s wording was never intended to grant automatic citizenship to children of non-citizens, and called for future legislative or constitutional action to revise the policy. Between these two polarizing views, some respondents shared more nuanced perspectives, acknowledging the historical importance of the principle while calling for broader comprehensive immigration reform to address unresolved challenges in the U.S. immigration system. For many Americans, the ruling has reignited conversations about what it means to be American, and how the nation should balance its commitment to inclusive principles with the need to enforce immigration laws. Legal experts note that the Supreme Court’s ruling sets a firm precedent that will likely keep birthright citizenship unchanged for the foreseeable future, even as the political debate over the issue continues to play out in statehouses and national election campaigns across the country.

In a landmark decision that has reshaped the trajectory of U.S. immigration policy and dealt a critical setback to former President Donald Trump’s long-held policy goals, the U.S. Supreme Court has voted 6-3 to reaffirm that all children born on U.S. soil hold a constitutional right to birthright citizenship, directly rejecting Trump’s bid to overturn the 150-year-old established practice.

Writing for the court’s majority, Chief Justice John Roberts anchored the ruling in the text and intent of the 14th Amendment, clarifying that even children born to parents who are in the United States either unlawfully or on a temporary status qualify as full U.S. citizens from birth. “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights – to freely participate in our political community,” Roberts wrote in his opinion. “The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land’, and we keep that promise today.” This longstanding policy has been a cornerstone of U.S. immigration and citizenship law since the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, following the U.S. Civil War, and has been repeatedly upheld by previous Supreme Court rulings over the decades.

Trump had pushed to curtail birthright citizenship via executive action, arguing that the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders do not meet the 14th Amendment’s requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and thus are not eligible for automatic citizenship. The case carried such high stakes for the president that he made a rare public appearance at the Supreme Court in April to observe the oral arguments.

Following the ruling’s release, Trump reacted on his social platform Truth Social, calling the outcome “too bad” and pledging to continue his campaign to end birthright citizenship through congressional legislation. Arguing that a full constitutional amendment is not required to enact the change, Trump urged Congress: “Congress should today start work on ending expensive, and unfair to our country, birthright citizenship.”

The ruling split the nine-member court sharply along ideological lines. Three justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito – issued dissenting opinions. Thomas argued that the 14th Amendment, originally drafted to guarantee citizenship for formerly enslaved people, was being misappropriated for modern political goals, noting that the freed slaves the amendment was intended to protect were already Americans with no conflicting foreign allegiance. Alito called the ruling a “serious mistake,” claiming it grants citizenship to nearly anyone born in the U.S. even if their parents traveled to the country specifically to give birth before returning to their home country.

Senior White House advisor Stephen Miller, a leading architect of the Trump administration’s restrictive immigration policies, echoed the dissent’s frustration in a post on X, labeling the ruling “one of the most destructive and outrageous decisions” in the Supreme Court’s history. “American citizenship is not the birthright of the world,” Miller wrote. “No provision of the Constitution can be read to require our national self-obliteration.”

Meanwhile, civil rights groups and immigration advocates across the country have celebrated the decision as a major victory for equal rights and longstanding constitutional principle. Dariely Rodriguez, chief counsel at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, noted that the ruling “solidifies what we have known to be true for over a hundred years. Anyone born on American soil, regardless of the legal status of their parents, is born an American citizen. We have endured an incredible test of our collective will as a nation and have prevailed.” BBC senior political correspondent Gary O’Donoghue has characterized the decision as a defining legal and political defeat for Trump’s immigration agenda.

After four months away from Capitol Hill on a previously unexplained medical leave, New Jersey Republican Congressman Tom Kean Jr. made his public return to the House of Representatives on Tuesday, opening up about his private struggle with depression in an emotional address to fellow lawmakers. The 57-year-old lawmaker, who is gearing up to defend his competitive swing district seat in November’s upcoming midterm elections, confirmed what had not been shared publicly during his absence: he was admitted to a hospital to receive treatment for a newly confirmed diagnosis of depression, a stay that stretched far longer than he initially anticipated.

Kean told the chamber that he entered the medical facility several months ago for routine health testing, never expecting the situation would lead to a months-long stay. When his depression diagnosis was finalized, his care team advised him to remain in the hospital to prioritize his recovery, noting that an extended focused treatment period would speed up his return to full health. In a speech that challenges common misconceptions about mental illness, Kean pushed back on the widespread misunderstanding that depression is just persistent sadness. “It is physical, it is emotional and, until you’ve experienced it yourself, it is difficult to fully understand how powerful this illness can be,” he said. “When people hear the word depression, many people think it simply means feeling sad. But depression is so much more than that.”

During his 142-day absence, Kean missed more than 140 congressional votes, sparking growing speculation and pressure from within his own party to be transparent about the reason for his leave. Prior to Tuesday’s address, Kean had only described his time away as a “personal medical issue” on social media, and even some of his own aides told U.S. media outlets they were unaware of the specific cause of his absence, only confirming that he was under the supervision of medical professionals. Earlier this June, Kean secured the Republican nomination for his district unopposed, clearing the first hurdle on his path to a third term in Congress.

Political analysts and party leaders have flagged Kean’s congressional district as one of the most competitive competitive seats up for grabs this cycle. A classic swing district with a history of shifting between Republican and Democratic control, the seat is viewed as critical to Republicans’ efforts to maintain their majority in Congress. Democrats have identified the district as a top pickup opportunity: unseating Kean would not only shift the balance of power toward Democrats but also mark a high-profile defeat for the movement aligned with former President Donald Trump.

A recent landmark ruling on birthright citizenship issued by the U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a major political and legal setback to former President Donald Trump, according to analysis from BBC senior White House correspondent Gary O’Donoghue. For years, Trump has pushed for controversial changes to the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which has granted automatic citizenship to nearly all people born on U.S. soil since the Reconstruction era. Trump and his supporters have repeatedly argued that the clause does not extend automatic citizenship to children of non-citizens and undocumented immigrants, a position that became a core part of his restrictive immigration policy agenda during his presidency and remained a key policy priority in post-presidency political activity. The Supreme Court’s ruling explicitly upheld the traditional interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, rejecting the legal challenge that aligned with Trump’s long-held policy stance. O’Donoghue breaks down the far-reaching implications of this decision for American immigration policy, the future of Trump’s political agenda, and the broader national debate over citizenship and immigration. The ruling not only blocks one of Trump’s most high-profile policy goals but also sets a firm legal precedent that will make it far harder to enact changes to birthright citizenship through the courts for years to come. It also reshapes the ongoing political conversation around immigration, a defining issue for American national politics heading into upcoming election cycles, strengthening the position of advocates who support inclusive citizenship policies while dealing a blow to hardline immigration reform efforts long championed by Trump and his allies.

In a landmark decision that has reshaped the landscape of youth and collegiate athletics policy in the United States, the US Supreme Court has upheld the right of individual states to implement bans barring transgender women from competing on female sports teams at public K-12 schools and colleges. The ruling stems from two separate legal challenges brought against participation bans passed in the states of Idaho and West Virginia, both of which require athlete eligibility for public school and college sports to be determined based on an individual’s sex assigned at birth. The challengers argued that the restrictions violate core US legal protections: one claimed the ban runs afoul of equal rights guarantees enshrined in the US Constitution, while the other asserted it conflicts with federal civil rights legislation. Idaho pioneered this policy shift when it passed the first such ban in 2020, and in the years since, more than 25 other states have followed suit with similar legislation. Under these rules, transgender women – individuals who were assigned male at birth but identify as women – are completely excluded from competing in women’s and girls’ athletic programs at public educational institutions. Long-distance runner Lindsay Hecox was one of the first to mount a legal challenge to Idaho’s law, filing suit almost immediately after the legislation was signed into action. Lower courts sided with Hecox, granting her a preliminary injunction that blocked enforcement of the ban while the case worked its way through the judicial system. A three-judge panel on the appeals court even went a step further, ruling that the Idaho law violated constitutional equal protection rights. The panel noted that state officials had failed to present concrete evidence proving the ban was necessary to preserve competitive fairness and athletic opportunity for cisgender female athletes. Barbara Ehardt, the Idaho state lawmaker who originally sponsored the legislation, defended the ban at the time of its passage, arguing that excluding transgender women from female sports was necessary to prevent cisgender girls and women from being displaced from competition and to maintain a level playing field. The issue of transgender athlete eligibility has become a flashpoint in partisan US politics over the past several years, and it featured prominently in former President Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential election campaign. After taking office earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order mandating a federal ban on transgender women competing in female sports. In the wake of that executive action, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the governing body that oversees intercollegiate athletics across the United States, updated its own policies to implement a nationwide ban on transgender women’s participation in women’s college sports. The Supreme Court’s latest decision clears the way for existing state bans to go into full effect, and is expected to encourage more states to adopt similar restrictions in the coming months, deepening the national debate over transgender rights, athletic equity, and state versus federal authority over education policy.