Syllabus - Trump v. Barbara - Certiorari Before Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit - No. 25-365

Sep 18, 2026

Supreme Court syllabus in Trump v. Barbara addressing whether the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present. The Executive Order issued in 2025 asserted such children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, leading to litigation and a nationwide class certification with preliminary injunction. The Court held these children are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, interpreting it through historical common-law context and rejecting the contrary approach associated with Dred Scott.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages194

Reading Time8 h 9 min

AccessFree to download

Issue Presented

Court’s Holding

Historical Interpretation Under English Common Law

Departure in Dred Scott v. Sandford

Attorney General Bates Opinion and Civil Rights Act of 1866

Role of the Fourteenth Amendment

Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. BARBARA ET AL. CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 25–365. Argued April 1, 2026—Decided June 30, 2026 The question presented is whether the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born in the United States of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country. Under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,“[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14160, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. The Order provides that children born in the United States of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present here are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States—and thus do not qualify for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which uses the same language. 90 Fed. Reg. 8449. Several parents filed suit, some in the name of their children, arguing that the Executive Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the INA. The District Court agreed, provisionally certified a nationwide class of children who would be denied citizenship by the Order, and preliminarily enjoined the Order’s enforcement. This Court granted certiorari before judgment. Held: 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. Pp. 2–26. (a) The Citizenship Clause must be understood in light of its historical context, from the English common law to the widespread condemnation of the Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393. Syllabus Pp. 2–9. (1) Under the English common law, children “born within the [sovereign’s] dominions” owed a natural “allegiance” to the sovereign who protected them at birth, 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 354, 356 (Blackstone), regardless of how “momentary and uncertain” their presence, Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1a, 6a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377, 384. Such children were therefore “natural-born subject[s] .”Doe v. Jones, 4 T. R. 300, 308, 100 Eng. Rep. 1031, 1035. The same rule applied to children born of parents subject to expulsion. See, e.g., 4 Blackstone 166. The rule’s exceptions were narrow: children born inlands the sovereign did not control, children born in areas temporarily outside the sovereign’s control, and children of foreign ministers (by a fiction of extraterritoriality) . Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. Rep., at 18a–18b, 77 Eng. Rep., at 399. This common law of citizenship—known as jus soli, or right of the soil—crossed the Atlantic and prevailed in “each and all of the states”after American independence. 2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 39, n. a (Kent) . The rule was applied even to the novel situation of quasi-sovereign Indian tribes, who maintained “dominion[s]” of their own such that Indians born under those dominions were not “citizens” but members of “alien and sovereign tribes.” Goodell v. Jackson ex dem. Smith, 20 Johns. 693, 714–715 (N. Y. Ct. Corr. Errors) . In a Nation of immigrants, jus soli’s broad scope took on particular importance, assuring that children of foreigners—including those here on a “temporary sojourn,” Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 638, 663–664 (N. Y. Ch.)—would be

FAQs

What legal question does the syllabus present?

Whether the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born in the United States when their parents are unlawfully or temporarily present.

What did the Executive Order conclude, and why was it challenged?

It stated such children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, so they do not qualify for citizenship. Parents sued, arguing the Order violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the INA.

What was the Supreme Court’s final holding?

Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.

Sep 18, 2026

Uploaded by Anna Hans