Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Birthright Citizenship

by

ralphs_fotos-banner-3585161-scaledOn June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, ruling that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, marks a major ruling on the meaning of American citizenship and the limits of executive power in immigration policy.

The case, Trump v. Barbara, centered on Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”

The order sought to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to certain children born in the United States if neither parent was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Specifically, it targeted children born to mothers who were either unlawfully present or lawfully present on a temporary basis, such as on a student, work, or tourist visa, when the father was not a U.S. citizen or green card holder.

The Supreme Court held that the executive order violated the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That clause provides that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside. The Court concluded that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are still “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore are citizens at birth.

Continue reading

by

markthomas-us-supreme-court-building-2225765-scaledFamilies across the United States are anxiously waiting for the Supreme Court to decide the future of President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order.

The order seeks to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to certain children born in the United States if their parents do not have permanent legal status.

For many immigrant families, the case is not just about politics or legal theory. It is about whether their children will be recognized as Americans from the moment they are born.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling by the end of June or early July, as the Court finishes its current term.

Until then, the executive order remains blocked by court orders, meaning children affected by the policy are still protected for now. But the uncertainty has left many families fearful about what could happen next.

At the heart of the case is the Fourteenth Amendment, which has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to most children born on U.S. soil. Trump’s order challenges that understanding by targeting children born to undocumented parents or parents in the U.S. on temporary visas, such as student, work, or tourist visas.

Continue reading

by

marek-studzinski-9U9I-eVx9nI-unsplash-scaled

A new UC Berkeley IGS poll shows that a strong majority of California voters disapprove of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics. Nearly 70% of respondents said they are unhappy with how immigration is being handled in the state — and many reported emotional responses to images of raids, describing them as unfair and upsetting.

The poll reveals a sharp political divide. Ninety-five percent of Democrats expressed disapproval with Trump’s immigration enforcement, while 79% of Republicans voiced support. Emotional reactions followed suit: most Democrats said they felt anger or sadness when shown footage of enforcement actions, while most Republicans felt hopeful or satisfied.

Specific policy questions revealed more tension. An overwhelming majority of Democrats support requiring immigration agents to wear visible ID and oppose raids in places like schools and hospitals. Republicans were more divided, with only about half supporting agent identification and a slight majority favoring enforcement in public spaces.

The issue of birthright citizenship also proved polarizing. 67% of Republicans said they support ending automatic citizenship for children born to undocumented parents, while 92% of Democrats opposed such a move.

Continue reading

by

motherhood-7114294_1280Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions blocking the Trump administration’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, except in class action lawsuits.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, at least three different lawsuits had secured nationwide injunctions protecting all individuals potentially affected by Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. However, the Court’s ruling scaled back those protections, potentially leaving some children unprotected.

To safeguard all families across the country and address any gaps left by prior legal actions, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class-action lawsuit, Barbara v. Donald J. Trump to stop the government’s enforcement of the order against all current or future babies born or after February 20, 2025, where:

(1) that child’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the child’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said child’s birth, or

(2) that child’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the child’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said child’s birth.

The U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante agreed with the plaintiffs and issued a class-wide preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s executive order from being enforced against any affected baby born in the United States after February 20th.

Continue reading

by

sarah-kranz-pKqAaTUi0wg-unsplash-scaledIn a significant ruling handed down on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of federal judges to impose nationwide injunctions against President Trump’s executive order aimed at denying birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to noncitizens.

While the justices did not rule on the legality of the President’s executive order, this decision is an extraordinary victory for the Trump administration, because it hinders lower courts from intervening in potentially illegal actions by the government.

Historically, lower courts have issued nationwide preliminary injunctions early in litigation to block government conduct that could cause irreparable harm to plaintiffs pending judicial review.

The court’s decision to restrain judges from providing such relief is a remarkable departure from historic precedent and ventures into dangerous territory. It further indicates that the balance of power on the Supreme Court has clearly shifted in Trump’s favor, with six conservative justices backing his position.

What it Means

The ruling means that lower courts cannot stop the enforcement of the executive order on a nationwide basis for affected individuals. The executive order can only be suspended against individuals who have filed lawsuits against the government (either as individual plaintiffs or in class actions) or where a state has issued a state-wide injunction.

It will take time before the Supreme Court ultimately rules on the constitutionality of the executive order, with some legal experts suggesting the process could stretch on for years.

It is also uncertain whether this decision could restrict future nationwide blocks on controversial laws, particularly in other immigration and civil rights cases against the government.

Continue reading

by

library-of-congress-jPN_oglAjOU-unsplash-scaledIt has been less than 24 hours since President Donald Trump has taken office, and he has already signed into law a flurry of executive orders directly impacting immigration.

More than a dozen of these executive orders dismantle Biden era immigration policies, and usher in restrictive policies for visa seekers, asylum applicants, and undocumented immigrants.

The swift issuance of these executive orders signals a tough political climate ahead for immigration, and what is sure to be a continuance of the Trump administration’s hardline stance on immigration.

While some of these executive orders may face legal challenges, here is a summary of all the executive orders affecting immigration issued on day one of Trump’s presidency.

Executive Order: President Trump’s America First Priorities

President Trump’s first executive order entitled “President Trump’s America First Priorities,” states the following as top priorities of his administration, which touch upon immigration.

  • President Trump promises to take “bold action” to secure the U.S. border and protect communities by calling on the U.S. Armed Forces and National Guard to assist with border security
  • At the President’s direction, the State Department will have an “America-First” foreign policy
  • Ends Biden’s Catch-and-Release Policies

What it is: Catch-and-release authorized the release of individuals without legal status from detention while awaiting immigration court hearings.

  • Reinstates Remain in Mexico Policy

What it is: Known formerly as the Migrant Protection Protocol, this policy will require certain asylum seekers at the southern border to wait in Mexico for their hearings in U.S. immigration court.

  • Continues the construction of his southern border wall with Mexico
  • Prohibits asylum for individuals who have crossed the border illegally

What it is: Aims to end asylum and close the border to those without legal, to facilitate a more immediate removal process

  • Cracks down on U.S. sanctuary cities
  • Enhanced vetting and screening of noncitizen aliens seeking admission to the U.S.

What it is: The President will direct agencies to report recommendations for the suspension of entry for nationals of any country of particular concerns.

  • Expands deportation operations for aliens with a criminal record
  • Suspends the refugee resettlement program
  • Designates cartels such as the “Tren de Aragua” as foreign terrorist organizations and calls for their removal by using the Alien Enemies Act
  • Calls on the Department of Justice to implement the death penalty for illegal immigrants “who maim and murder” Americans and commit “heinous crimes”

Continue reading