In a 6-3 vote, the United States Supreme Court ruled Tuesday to uphold birthright citizenship across the nation.
This struck down an executive order from President Donald Trump that would have done away with citizenship for the children of immigrants without permanent residency.
This decision also upholds United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which created birthright citizenship in 1898.
“What the court finalized today is that citizenship rules are not flexible policy decisions; they are fixed constitutional rights,” said Gabriella Agostinelli, Senior Associate Attorney at Berardi Immigration Law. “Even though we have a very conservative court at the moment, we still have to have respect for our jurisprudence, our court case history that has come before us, and that's what they did.”
When Trump signed the executive order, trying to limit this right in January 2025, it left many people questioning what this would mean for immigrants and their children who were born in the United States.
“The Constitution is a discussion of our values as a country, what we believe in. And if we are going to change our values, what we believe in, it needs to be a concerted effort that is representative of our country and our people in what we want. For one person to come in and be able to make broad changes to our values is not a good move,” Agostinelli said.
The United States has a large immigrant population that are giving birth to children every year. About 9% of the births in the U.S. are to mothers who are undocumented or on temporary status, according to Agostinelli. There are also between four and five million children who live with at least one undocumented parent.
“That's four to five million contributors to our economy,” she said. “That's four to five million individuals who can help innovate us as a nation going forward.”
In Western New York, the executive order would not have directly affected resettled refugees, because they enter the U.S. with permanent legal status, as explained by Jennifer Rizzo-Choi, executive director of the International Institute of Buffalo and an immigration attorney. She said the greater uncertainty would have been for asylum seekers, undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign residents who have children while living in the U.S.
“It's good that there's now clarity related to this, and there's more assurances, I think, for people who are here in a temporary category while trying to determine their permanent future," Rizzo-Choi said.
She said she wasn't surprised by the SCOTUS' decision, which reaffirms over a century worth of legal precedent on birthright citizenship.
"I know that there are a lot of people today taking a huge sigh of relief that this is settled, but if you look at the history of our law, it's clear that birthright citizenship is something that has always been afforded to two children born in the United States," she said.
The ruling settles the executive order for now, but not the national debate. Trump is calling on Congress to act next, meaning birthright citizenship could remain a political flashpoint even after Tuesday’s decision.
Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, despite siding with the majority, wrote his own opinion that he believes efforts to limit birthright citizenship can be done through normal legislation in Congress.
Agostinelli believes that if the Supreme Court had ruled in Trump’s favor, the country would have been shooting itself in the foot.
“We are a country of immigrants, and we all deserve a chance. Citizenship is the great equalizer,” she said.
