What birthright citizenship decision means for kids of immigrants

(NewsNation) — Families of immigrants who entered the United States illegally are breathing a sigh of relief, as the U.S. Supreme Court decided to uphold birthright citizenship in its decision Tuesday.

The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order that sought to restrict constitutional rights to babies born in the U.S. to undocumented parents.

One immigration attorney said the country avoided a “bureaucratic nightmare.”

Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch, a Texas immigration attorney, said, unlike the recent Supreme Court decisions that had swung in the administration’s favor, Tuesday’s ruling on birthright citizenship rose to a different level because of what is at stake.

She said birthright citizenship is “much more entrenched and fundamental” to who we are as a country than other immigration issues the Supreme Court has ruled on in recent days.

About one in nine babies born each year in the U.S. are born to parents who are either undocumented or have no legal immigration status, according to Pew Research. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates 225,000 to 250,000 births to illegal immigrants occurred in 2023 — nearly 7% of total U.S. births.

Ending birthright citizenship would have been ‘an insane, chaotic mess,’ attorney says

If the court ruled in favor of ending birthright citizenship, immigration attorneys and other officials would have faced a potential logistical nightmare, Lincoln-Goldfinch said. In addition to overturning Constitutional guarantees that have been in place for centuries, justices would have forced states and immigration advocates to “untangle an insane, chaotic mess.”

Without birthright citizenship guarantees in place, individual states would need to implement how they view children born to foreign-born or undocumented parents in the U.S. Hospitals would be forced to decide how they would check the documentation provided by parents in determining whether to issue a birth certificate.

“I do think the court does need to consider what the implications or the impact of their decision would be and if they pull birthright citizenship, what will that look like for people?” Lincoln-Goldfinch said ahead of the ruling.

In a Truth Social post Tuesday, Trump said the Supreme Court’s ruling is “too bad for our country,” but added that the administration can “easily make it up in Congress through legislation.”

“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!” Trump wrote.

What would have happened if birthright citizenship ended?

Lincoln-Goldfinch said without a national standard for children born in the U.S., the uncertainty of what laws exist which states could have larger ramifications for the rights of certain U.S.-born children when it comes to voting, the right to obtain legal documents like passports and other rights.

She added Trump’s executive order was not retroactive, meaning babies born in the U.S. before the order’s signing likely would not be affected. If the high court had ruled in his favor, Trump would have needed to provide more guidance as to how his executive order would be carried out, Lincoln-Goldfinch said.

She also said families would have been fractured and that migrant detention facilities could have faced even more issues with population than they do now, she said.

“The fallout of the revocation of birthright citizenship in this country could be extremely brutal and harmful and detrimental to our future,” she told NewsNation. “This would be a night and day shift for us and probably a very dangerous and potentially violent one down the line.”

Birthright citizenship decision: What happens now?

With the court’s ruling now in place, Lincoln-Goldfinch hopes Trump honors the ruling as he indicated he would Monday. She said Monday she feared the precedent that would have been set had justices continued a recent pattern of backing Trump’s immigration agenda.

“The real impact of this decision, other than the individual lives of people born in this country or to be born in this country, (is) if the Supreme Court allows the president to change the Constitution by executive order, it will mean that we have entered into a dictatorship,” she said Monday. “And one can imagine the next step and the next step and the one thereafter and so that’s what we’re really watching (Tuesday) other than birthright citizenship.

“Is the highest court in the land going to allow a heavy-handed president to change our Constitution?”

In a 6-3 ruling, justices ruled Trump’s attempt to limit the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional. The decision came 18 months after Trump challenged the 14th Amendment guarantee, writing in an executive order the 14^th Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the U.S.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. “The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’”

He added: “We keep that promise today.”

Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Asked Monday if he would accept the high court’s decision, Trump said, “I guess I have to accept it — it’s the Supreme Court — but I think it’s very bad for our nation. We’re the only nation that does it.”

He added: “(Birthright citizenship) is tremendously destructive, it’s extremely costly, but I don’t know (what will happen). It’s up to (justices), but in terms of, for the good of the country, it would be great if they didn’t allow it.”

The order, signed shortly after Trump took office, argued U.S. citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born within the U.S under certain conditions.

Those conditions include when a child’s mother was in the U.S. illegally and the father was not a U.S. citizen or a legal resident at the time of the birth. Another exception was made for when the child’s mother was lawful, but temporary and the father was not a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident at the time of the child’s birth.

How recent Supreme Court decisions backed Trump’s immigration policies

Tuesday’s ruling on birthright citizenship came after the Supreme Court had previously ruled in favor of the administration on three other immigration-related issues. Last week, justices ruled in a 6-3 decision that Trump can end temporary legal protection for Haitians and Syrians, who had previously been protected. The White House called the decision “a tremendous win for the Trump administration.”

The U.S. provided TPS protections to 330,735 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians as of March 2025, according to the Congressional Research Service. But after the decision, more than 1 million Haitian and Syrian nationals could face deportation.

The high court also gave the government power over green card holders who have been accused of a crime. The 6-3 decision centered on a 2012 case in which a lawful permanent resident’s status was questioned after he was accused of counterfeiting crimes.

In another 6-3 ruling in which justices fell along ideological lines, the high court determined the federal government has the authority to turn back asylum seekers who are attempting to reach a port of entry before they reach the U.S. border.

Jeff Arnold is a national immigration enterprise reporter for NewsNation Digital, covering immigration-related issues from the border to cities across the country. Send him story ideas at tips.newsnationdigital@gmail.com.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WHBF - OurQuadCities.com.