En esta noticia
The Supreme Court rejected President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants. The administration argued that those children should not automatically receive U.S. citizenship.
The Trump administration signed the executive order shortly after the start of Trump’s second term as part of its effort to reduce illegal immigration.
However, the justices pointed to the 14th Amendment, which states that anyone born in the country is a U.S. citizen.
Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship
The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirmed the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has been applied for more than a century to guarantee citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, with only limited exceptions recognized in prior rulings.
The ruling effectively blocks the executive order from taking effect in its intended form, reinforcing the constitutional standard that birthright citizenship cannot be narrowed through unilateral executive action.
The justices emphasized that the constitutional framework established after the Civil War has consistently been understood to grant citizenship at birth, regardless of parental immigration status.
How many people would be affected by Trump’s birthright citizenship change?
Under the policy proposed by the Trump administration, approximately 255,000 children born each year in the United States would have been denied automatic citizenship, according to estimates from the Migration Policy Institute.
That figure represents roughly 6 percent of all annual births in the country, highlighting the scale of the proposed change to longstanding immigration interpretation.
The Migration Policy Institute also projected that the share of the U.S. population without citizenship or legal status could have been significantly higher over the long term if the policy had been implemented.
Of the estimated 14 million people living in the United States without documentation, a large share comes from Mexico and other parts of Central and South America, according to research cited in court filings and academic analysis. Additional populations with temporary or uncertain legal status include individuals with pending asylum claims and those admitted under humanitarian programs.
These groups reflect broader immigration patterns from Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean, which have shaped the demographic context of the case.