Does the U.S. Still Have Birthright Citizenship?

Yes. On June 30, 2026, the Supreme 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. A second executive order signed in August 2026 targets narrower categories of children, and a federal court in Maryland has blocked that order as to a certified class of children while the lawsuit continues.

What did the Supreme Court decide about birthright citizenship in 2026?

The Court decided that the Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to children born here of parents who are in the country unlawfully or only temporarily. The case is Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365, argued April 1, 2026, and decided June 30, 2026. It affirmed a lower court's preliminary injunction blocking Executive Order 14160, which President Trump signed on January 20, 2025.

That order said a child was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and so was not a citizen, if the mother was unlawfully present and the father was not a citizen or lawful permanent resident, or if the mother's presence was lawful but temporary and the father was not a citizen or lawful permanent resident. A district court in New Hampshire had provisionally certified a nationwide class of children and blocked the order. The Supreme Court affirmed. You can read the opinion on the Court's own website.

What does the Fourteenth Amendment actually say?

The Citizenship Clause is one sentence: "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." The case turned on the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, read that phrase as referring to the power of the United States to govern people within its territory. He pointed out that words appearing often in the 2025 order, such as "mother," "father," "lawful," and "temporary," are absent from the Clause. For more on the amendment as a whole, see our guide to what the 14th Amendment says and protects.

Who does the ruling cover, and who is left out?

The holding covers children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present here. The opinion says those children "satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause: they are 'born . . . in the United States' and 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth."

The Court also described the traditional exceptions. Under the English common law that the Clause followed, the exceptions were narrow: children born in lands the sovereign did not control, children born in areas temporarily outside the sovereign's control, and children of foreign ministers. As to the Clause itself, the majority wrote that the groups excluded were "the children of foreign ministers and members of 19th-century Indian tribes over whom the United States had ceded a part of its territorial jurisdiction to preserve its relationship with a foreign sovereign (or quasi-sovereign)." Elsewhere the opinion refers to ambassadors as one of the "familiar exceptions."

The Court said that no such concerns apply to children whose parents are unlawfully or temporarily present, because no foreign sovereign has "any motive for wishing" them outside this country's authority.

How did the justices vote?

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson. Justice Jackson also wrote a concurring opinion, and Justice Sotomayor joined part of it.

Justice Kavanaugh filed an opinion "concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part." He disagreed with the constitutional holding and wrote that the 2025 order did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. In his view the order did contravene a federal statute, 8 U.S.C. §1401(a), and he wrote that Congress could change that statute to set exceptions but "has not yet done so."

Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Gorsuch, and wrote that the Clause did not guarantee citizenship "to persons who were not domiciled in the United States." Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch each filed their own dissents as well. Justice Alito wrote that the Court's reading confers citizenship on "virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country," including children of what he called birth tourists. Because the Court affirmed the lower court, those dissents did not change the result.

What did the August 2026 executive orders try to do?

The President signed two orders on August 6, 2026, both published in the Federal Register on August 11. Executive Order 14418, "Continuing To Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," appears at 91 Fed. Reg. 51991 and can be read on govinfo.gov. It says it addresses, "non-exhaustively," categories of children who "do not fall within the rule of birthright citizenship as announced by the Supreme Court."

Section 2 says no executive agency should issue documents recognizing citizenship for a person, or accept documents from states or others that do, when neither parent is a citizen and one of four situations applies:

• A parent is an "alien enemy," defined to include members of a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization or a Specially Designated Global Terrorist.
• A parent is a foreign government employee, defined to include ambassadors, certain embassy and consulate staff who are nationals of that country, people employed by a foreign government in an official capacity, and employees of an international organization who have international-organization immunity.
• A parent engaged in a commercial transaction to buy or access birthright citizenship, or in fraud to obtain citizenship, including a commercial transaction to make sure the mother is present in the United States or a U.S. territory to give birth, or a commercial transaction with a surrogate present here to give birth.
• The person was born in a U.S. territory or its waters where federal statute does not confer citizenship.

Section 3(b) told every agency to issue public guidance within 30 days. A companion order, Executive Order 14419, "Ending Birth Tourism," is a separate measure at 91 Fed. Reg. 51993 (text here). Its operative sections address visas and entry, directing the State and Homeland Security departments to act against people who enter on nonimmigrant visas for the purpose of giving birth here.

What did the federal court in Maryland block?

On September 2, 2026, Judge Deborah L. Boardman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted a classwide preliminary injunction against Executive Order 14418 in CASA, Inc. v. Trump, Civ. No. DLB-25-201. The opinion defines the certified class this way: "Any child who has been born or will be born in the United States after February 19, 2025, (1) whose mother was unlawfully present in the United States and whose father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) whose mother's presence in the United States at the time of said person's birth was lawful but temporary and whose father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth."

The court barred the defendants, meaning the federal officials and agencies named in the suit (among them the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Commissioner of Social Security) and their officers and agents, "from enforcing or applying the 2026 Executive Order against any member of the certified class or from taking any other action to interfere with, deny, or fail to recognize the citizenship of any member of the certified class." The judge wrote that the plaintiffs were "highly likely to succeed" because the Supreme Court "already decided that the children in the class are citizens at birth."

The injunction has limits. It does not cover subsection 2(d), which the court said does not threaten any class member's citizenship. It does not stop the agencies from issuing the guidance that Section 3(b) requires. It does not bind the President himself. The government may ask the court to modify or dissolve the injunction after guidance issues.

What has not been decided yet?

The Maryland order is a preliminary injunction, not a final judgment, and the litigation over the 2026 order is ongoing. The judge said she was not ruling on whether each of the order's four categories is constitutional. She declined what she called an invitation to issue an advisory opinion and limited the ruling to whether the order is likely unconstitutional as applied to the class.

The judge also noted that the class definition, as written, could reach children of ambassadors, since ambassadors are temporarily present. She said the government never raised that point when the class was certified, and that it may ask to have the definition revised. Nothing in the opinions we reviewed settles how any court will treat the order's categories outside the class, and this page does not predict that.

The government argued the order applies only to children not yet born. The judge said the order's text does not say that, in contrast to the 2025 order, which applied only to babies born after a set date. She also noted that the government had not provided a sworn statement to that effect and read the order as applying to any child who meets its criteria, whenever born.

Are federal agencies already applying the new order?

Some have started issuing the guidance Section 3(b) calls for. The Administration for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services published guidance on September 22, 2026, addressed to states about verifying citizenship for federal public benefits. It states: "This guidance is prospective only and will become effective upon publication subject to any legal obligations." The Railroad Retirement Board has also posted guidance on the order.

We did not review every agency's rules, including the passport and Social Security procedures that matter most to new parents. Those could change, and the issuing agency's own website is the place to check. The Maryland injunction bars the defendants in that case, which include the Secretary of State and the Commissioner of Social Security, from enforcing the order against members of the certified class.

What can parents of a U.S.-born child do now?

These steps are general and fit most families. Your situation may differ.

1. Get the child's official birth certificate from the state or county where the child was born, and order several certified copies.
2. Apply for the child's Social Security number and, when you need one, a passport, using the normal process. Ask for any denial or request for extra proof in writing.
3. Store the certified copies in a safe place.
4. Write down each parent's immigration status on the date of the birth, and keep any papers that show it. If procedures change, those records may matter.
5. If an agency refuses to recognize your U.S.-born child as a citizen, get the refusal in writing, note the date and the office, and contact a legal aid organization or an immigration attorney quickly.

Citizenship can also pass to children born abroad through their parents, which works under different rules (see citizenship through parents), and a person with U.S. citizenship may hold another nationality too (see dual citizenship). If you are worried about keeping your own status, our guide on whether you can lose your U.S. citizenship covers the limits.

This page is general information about court rulings and executive orders as of October 13, 2026, and is not legal advice. Facts and rules can change, so consider talking with a lawyer, legal aid office, or court self-help center about your own case.

The law behind your rights

Constitutional protections apply to everyone physically present in the United States, regardless of immigration status. The Fourth Amendment limits searches and seizures and generally bars agents from entering a home without consent or a warrant signed by a judge; the Fifth Amendment protects the right to remain silent and guarantees due process; the First Amendment protects recording agents in public and sharing information; and the Fourteenth Amendment extends due-process protections. Immigration enforcement is civil, so there is a right to a lawyer, but not one provided at government expense.

Constitutional basis: First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment. Your state constitution may add further protections.

These are landmark federal cases that establish the rights described above. How they apply can depend on your state, the federal circuit you are in, and the specific facts of an encounter. This is general legal information, not legal advice.