Trump v. Barbara

The Court's opinion

Roberts, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, Jackson

The opinion of the Court held that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, and affirmed the District Court's judgment, which had preliminarily enjoined Executive Order No. 14160.

Concurring

Jackson, joined by Sotomayor as to the introduction and Part I

Jackson joined the Court's opinion in full and wrote separately to respond to themes in the principal dissent; Sotomayor joined the introduction and Part I.

Concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part

Kavanaugh, writing alone

Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment and dissented in part: in his view the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, but it does contravene a federal statute, 8 U.S.C. 1401(a), which Congress could amend.

Dissenting

Thomas, joined by Gorsuch

Thomas, joined by Gorsuch, would have held that the Citizenship Clause, like the Civil Rights Act of 1866, guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States, and not to children whose parents were not domiciled here.

Dissenting

Alito, writing alone

Alito would have held that the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship only on children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.

Dissenting

Gorsuch, writing alone

Gorsuch joined Thomas's dissent and added that the Clause turns on whether a child's parents have made the country their home, consistent with United States v. Wong Kim Ark, and that the facial injunction barring every application of the Order could not be sustained.