The US Supreme Court has struck down an executive order seeking to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the country to temporary or undocumented foreign nationals, delivering a major setback to the administration’s immigration policy and preserving the legal framework that has long underpinned the practice commonly referred to as "birth tourism".In a 6-3 ruling in Trump vs Barbara, the court held that the executive order, signed on the first day of President Donald Trump’s second term, violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. The decision ensures that children born on American soil continue to be entitled to birthright citizenship irrespective of their parents’ immigration status.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-going-through-difficult-period-but-will-overcome-challenges-says-putin-details-inside-1782661227896">‘Russia going through difficult period but will overcome challenges,’ says Putin. Details inside</a>&nbsp;The now-invalidated order had directed federal agencies to withhold Social Security numbers and US passports from newborns unless at least one parent was an American citizen or a lawful permanent resident. The administration argued that the framers of the Citizenship Clause in 1868 did not intend to extend automatic citizenship to children of temporary visitors or foreign tourists.Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected that interpretation, describing it as a “dramatically revisionist view” of established constitutional law.&nbsp;Roberts said the Fourteenth Amendment contains no language limiting citizenship based on whether a parent is in the country lawfully or temporarily. He noted that the constitutional text makes no distinction based on immigration status, making it irrelevant to a child's entitlement to citizenship by birth. The ruling was supported by a majority that included conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the court’s liberal justices in preserving the long-standing interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rahul-gandhi-missing-posters-seen-across-delhi-amid-bjp-s-attack-over-reported-foreign-trip-1782656297659">'Rahul Gandhi missing'? Posters seen across Delhi amid BJP's attack over reported foreign trip</a>&nbsp;The decision is expected to have significant implications for the global "birth tourism" industry, in which foreign nationals travel to the United States to give birth so their children automatically acquire US citizenship.&nbsp;With the court reaffirming the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship, the legal basis for obtaining US citizenship through birth on American soil remains unchanged. As a result, newborns born in the United States to foreign visitors remain eligible for US passports and other rights associated with citizenship, provided they meet existing constitutional requirements.

The US Supreme Court struck down a Trump administration executive order in a 6-3 ruling, affirming that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship regardless of parents' immigration status.

The US Supreme Court has struck down an executive order seeking to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the country to temporary or undocumented foreign nationals, delivering a major setback to the administration’s immigration policy and preserving the legal framework that has long underpinned the practice commonly referred to as "birth tourism". In a 6-3 ruling in Trump vs Barbara, the court held that the executive order, signed on the first day of President Donald Trump’s second term, violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. The decision ensures that children born on American soil continue to be entitled to birthright citizenship irrespective of their parents’ immigration status. Also read: ‘Russia going through difficult period but will overcome challenges,’ says Putin. Details inside The now-invalidated order had directed federal agencies to withhold Social Security numbers and US passports from newborns unless at least one parent was an American citizen or a lawful permanent resident. The administration argued that the framers of the Citizenship Clause in 1868 did not intend to extend automatic citizenship to children of temporary visitors or foreign tourists. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected that interpretation, describing it as a “dramatically revisionist view” of established constitutional law. Roberts said the Fourteenth Amendment contains no language limiting citizenship based on whether a parent is in the country lawfully or temporarily. He noted that the constitutional text makes no distinction based on immigration status, making it irrelevant to a child's entitlement to citizenship by birth. The ruling was supported by a majority that included conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the court’s liberal justices in preserving the long-standing interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. Also read: 'Rahul Gandhi missing'? Posters seen across Delhi amid BJP's attack over reported foreign trip The decision is expected to have significant implications for the global "birth tourism" industry, in which foreign nationals travel to the United States to give birth so their children automatically acquire US citizenship. With the court reaffirming the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship, the legal basis for obtaining US citizenship through birth on American soil remains unchanged. As a result, newborns born in the United States to foreign visitors remain eligible for US passports and other rights associated with citizenship, provided they meet existing constitutional requirements.

The US Supreme Court struck down a Trump administration executive order in a 6-3 ruling, affirming that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship regardless of parents' immigration status.

What US Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship ruling mean for ‘birth tourism’?

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 30) struck down President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, blocking an executive order that sought to overturn a constitutional principle recognised for more than a century. The order, a key part of Trump's immigration agenda, had faced legal challenges from the outset over its constitutional validity.<h2>Supreme Court rejects Trump's 'domicile' argument</h2>The court dismissed one of Trump's central arguments that birthright citizenship should apply only to people who are "domiciled" in the US, meaning they intend to remain in the country permanently. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said there was little historical or legal basis for interpreting the 14th Amendment in that way.&nbsp;"If Congress intended to hinge citizenship on each individual's domicile, a question that 'is sometimes a matter of great difficulty to decide', it is reasonable to expect there would have been at least some discussion of the topic," Roberts wrote.&nbsp;He added that the term "domicile" appears only twice in discussions surrounding the relevant provision of the Civil Rights Act and only once during debates over the Citizenship Clause, where it was used to distinguish state citizenship from national citizenship under the Constitution.

US Supreme Court knocked down Donald Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship on Tuesday (June 30). The SC blocked an executive order that sought to overturn a constitutional principle recognised for more than a century. 



The US Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 30) struck down President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, blocking an executive order that sought to overturn a constitutional principle recognised for more than a century. The order, a key part of Trump's immigration agenda, had faced legal challenges from the outset over its constitutional validity. Supreme Court rejects Trump's 'domicile' argument The court dismissed one of Trump's central arguments that birthright citizenship should apply only to people who are "domiciled" in the US, meaning they intend to remain in the country permanently. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said there was little historical or legal basis for interpreting the 14th Amendment in that way. "If Congress intended to hinge citizenship on each individual's domicile, a question that 'is sometimes a matter of great difficulty to decide', it is reasonable to expect there would have been at least some discussion of the topic," Roberts wrote. He added that the term "domicile" appears only twice in discussions surrounding the relevant provision of the Civil Rights Act and only once during debates over the Citizenship Clause, where it was used to distinguish state citizenship from national citizenship under the Constitution.

US Supreme Court knocked down Donald Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship on Tuesday (June 30). The SC blocked an executive order that sought to overturn a constitutional principle recognised for more than a century.&nbsp;&nbsp;

US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's birthright citizenship order

us-supreme-court-birthright-citizenship

Us Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship, News on Us Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship, stories on Us Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship, articles on Us Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship, Us Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship stories at Wion, Us Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship news, Us Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship latest news

us supreme-court-birthright-citizenship

What US Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship ruling mean for ‘birth tourism’?

US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's birthright citizenship order