Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, reaffirming the more than 100-year-old understanding that nearly all of those born in the United States are citizens.

In a divided decision in the case Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court split 6-3 in finding that Mr. Trump's policy is unlawful. Five of the justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson — agreed that Mr. Trump's executive order violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately to say he believes the order violates federal law.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

With the decision, the Supreme Court has now invalidated a second of Mr. Trump's signature initiatives from his second term, joining its ruling striking down many of his tariffs in February. The president signed his directive aiming to restrict birthright citizenship on his first day back in the White House as part of a sweeping crackdown on immigration.

"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,'" Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "We keep that promise today."

Thomas, joined by Gorsuch, argued that the majority's account of the history of the rule for American citizenship "is not historically accurate."

"The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President's Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens," he wrote. "In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support."

Trump's order

A cornerstone of Mr. Trump's immigration agenda, his executive order sought to deny automatic American citizenship to babies born to parents in the country illegally or temporarily. The order would have upended the long-held interpretation of the Constitution's Citizenship Clause as granting citizenship to almost all people born in the U.S.

But the directive never took effect, since it was blocked by every federal court that examined it.

In response to the Supreme Court's decision, Mr. Trump urged Congress to take action to restrict birthright citizenship. But given the conclusion from the five-justice majority that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, a constitutional amendment would likely be needed to restrict it.

"The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process," he wrote on Truth Social. "No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!"

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Congress codified that language in federal immigration law, first in 1940 through the Nationality Act, and again in 1952 in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Supreme Court considered the meaning of the clause in a landmark case in 1898 and affirmed the rule of citizenship by birth, with rare exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats, occupying armies and members of Native American tribes. Congress in 1924 enacted legislation conferring citizenship on all Native Americans born in the U.S.

Still, Mr. Trump's executive order sought to change the long-held definition of who is an American. The president and his administration argued that unrestricted birthright citizenship has served as a powerful incentive for illegal immigration and birth tourism. They said the Citizenship Clause has been misread since the mid-20th century.

While the administration said Mr. Trump's measure would have applied only prospectively, the effects would have been far-reaching. An estimated 250,000 babies born in the U.S. would be denied citizenship each year under the executive order, according to the Migration Policy Institute and Penn State's Population Research Institute.

In a sign of the case's importance to Mr. Trump, he attended the oral arguments in April, becoming the first sitting president in modern history to view such proceedings at the high court. Still, the president indicated in social media posts across the past few months that he believed he may not prevail before the Supreme Court.

Mr. Trump's executive order was met almost immediately with legal challenges in courts across the country. Judges in New Hampshire, Washington, Massachusetts and Maryland quickly blocked enforcement of the policy nationwide.

The Trump administration pursued emergency appeals of those decisions, eventually landing the issue before the Supreme Court last year. But those cases involved the scope of the lower court orders, known as nationwide injunctions, and not the legality of Mr. Trump's effort to limit birthright citizenship.

After the high court curbed lower courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, another challenge was filed in New Hampshire on behalf of all children who would be covered by the birthright citizenship policy. It was that case that landed before the high court, though in this instance, the justices weighed whether it violated federal law or the Constitution.

Writing for the majority, Roberts, in reference to the 1898 case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark,

said the Supreme Court's holding then "was simple: the Citizenship Clause incorporated the common law and granted citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States. Not surprisingly, then, in the 128 years since, we have repeatedly understood the rule of Wong Kim Ark to guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its power. We see no reason to depart from that view today."

In separate opinions, both Kavanaugh and Justice Samuel Alito suggested that if there was an appetite to limit birthright citizenship, as Mr. Trump attempted to do unilaterally, Congress could enact legislation doing so.

"Congress could — consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment — amend [the Immigration and Nationality Act] or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so," Kavanaugh wrote.

CBS Host LOSES IT After Sen. Kennedy FACT CHECKS Her Trump LIES… THIS GOT BAD!...

CBS Host PRESSES John Kennedy on Trump’s Spending — His Answer Takes an Unexpected Turn

The interview began with some of the biggest questions facing Washington: the conflict with Iran, rising fuel costs, and the approaching midterm elections. But when Republican Senator John Kennedy appeared on Face the Nation with CBS host Margaret Brennan, the conversation quickly moved toward an issue that could shape the political debate for months to come: how the government spends taxpayers’ money.

Kennedy did not pretend that the economic pressure facing American families was insignificant. He argued that voters were far more concerned about the cost of living than the daily battles playing out on television. With oil prices affected by disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, he said, the consequences of foreign policy were reaching directly into household budgets.

Kennedy Brings the Conversation Back to Affordability

Kennedy’s message to the White House was unusually direct. He predicted that the midterm elections would be close and argued that Republicans needed to keep their attention on the financial concerns of ordinary Americans.

“When moms and dads lie down to sleep at night and can't,” Kennedy told Brennan, they are worried about the cost of living.

He also called for a nationwide address explaining why the United States entered the conflict with Iran, what the administration hoped to achieve, and how it intended to bring the situation to a conclusion.

His position was not a blanket rejection of the administration’s strategy. Kennedy defended continued pressure on Iran while acknowledging the economic consequences of the partially closed strait. He opposed sending American troops into the situation, warning that deploying them could create a new set of problems.

That combination—support for pressure abroad alongside concern about prices at home—set the tone for the rest of the interview.

image

Nearly $1 Billion in Cuts Sparks a Constitutional Dispute

The conversation became more pointed when Brennan asked about the White House’s decision to cancel nearly $1 billion in previously approved federal funding without congressional consent.

Brennan raised concerns expressed by Senator Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who argued that the move threatened Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.

Kennedy disagreed.

“I love Susan like a taco, but she's wrong,” he said before explaining his view that Congress often appropriates money in broad categories, leaving agencies with considerable discretion over how funds are ultimately used.

He then deployed the phrase that would become the interview’s most memorable sound bite: “Spending porn.”

Kennedy used the expression to criticize what he considers wasteful government expenditures, pointing to funding for circumcision programs in Zambia and electric buses in Rwanda. He also argued that Congress should take greater responsibility for identifying and eliminating spending it believes is unnecessary.

But the disagreement was about more than whether particular programs were worthwhile. It raised a larger question: when Congress approves funding, how much authority should the executive branch have to cancel or redirect it?

Kennedy defended the cuts, while Brennan’s question highlighted the legal and constitutional objections. The interview did not resolve that dispute, but it brought the competing arguments into sharp focus.

image

Then Kennedy Turned the Standard on Trump

The most revealing moment came when Brennan shifted from the proposed cuts to taxpayer-funded advertising.

She asked Kennedy about a government-funded commercial prominently featuring President Donald Trump and praising his leadership. The question echoed earlier controversy surrounding former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose department had spent $220 million on a border-security advertising campaign in which she appeared prominently.

Kennedy had previously criticized Noem’s campaign. Now, with Trump featured in another advertisement paid for by the federal government, Brennan asked whether that spending was appropriate.

Kennedy’s response was notable because he explicitly included his own political allies—and himself—in the principle he was defending.

“I don't think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves,” he said.

He acknowledged that the White House viewed the issue differently but argued that public funds should not be used to promote individual politicians. He also suggested that politicians should not have buildings named after them while they are still alive.

That answer complicated any attempt to portray his position as simply a defense of the administration. Kennedy supported the proposed spending cuts, but he also applied his criticism of taxpayer-funded self-promotion to Trump.

The Real Takeaway From the Interview

The exchange was not a shouting match, nor does the published transcript establish that Brennan lost her composure or that Kennedy fact-checked a series of false statements from her. What it does show is a pointed discussion about economic priorities, congressional spending authority, and whether public money should be used to enhance a politician’s image.

Kennedy’s argument was straightforward: families are worried about affordability, government spending deserves scrutiny, and the rules should apply regardless of party.

Whether viewers agree with his assessment of the proposed cuts is a separate question. The legal dispute over executive spending authority and the debate over taxpayer-funded political advertising deserve examination beyond a few memorable television lines.

The moment worth watching is when Brennan moves from criticizing government spending in general to asking Kennedy about an advertisement featuring Trump himself. That is where the discussion becomes more complicated—and where Kennedy’s stated principle is tested against his own party’s leadership.

Watch the full interview through the link below to hear the exchange in context and decide how convincing each side’s argument really was.