- The Trump administration missed the July 27 deadline to ask the Supreme Court to rehear its birthright citizenship case.
- A six-to-three ruling confirmed children born in the U.S. remain automatic citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Opponents of birthright citizenship are now pivoting to legislative action through the Birthright Citizenship Clarification Act of 2026.
President Donald Trump’s administration missed the Monday deadline to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling against his birthright citizenship order, leaving no rehearing petition on the court’s docket.
The 25-day filing window closed on July 27, 2026. Trump had said on July 8 that he would seek reconsideration "IMMEDIATELY," but no petition appeared before the deadline.
Free toolSubstantial Presence Test Calculator
The court ruled 6-3 on June 30 that the executive order violated the 14th Amendment. Three justices dissented and argued that the policy should have taken effect.
Neither the White House nor the Justice Department responded to requests for comment as of July 29, 2026. The administration’s missed filing leaves legislation as the remaining route identified for pursuing the restrictions.
Trump had called the ruling a decision that "will destroy America." The court has not agreed to rehear an argued case in more than 50 years, and a successful petition would have required five votes.
The ruling rejected the order signed on January 20, 2025
The case, Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Barbara et al., No. 25-365, challenged Executive Order 14160, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship."
Trump signed the order on January 20, 2025. It sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States when neither parent was a U.S. citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident, or LPR.
The 6-3 decision held that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and receive citizenship at birth. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson.
Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment. He concluded that the order violated federal statute, 8 U.S.C. §1401(a), while suggesting that Congress could potentially change the law through legislation.
Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented. Justice Thomas wrote that the Citizenship Clause guaranteed citizenship only to people "domiciled" in the United States.
The court’s syllabus for the decision identifies the case as No. 25-365 and records the majority, concurrence, and dissent.
Children of temporary and undocumented residents remain covered
Before the ruling, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services published an implementation plan and guidance describing how the order would operate if upheld. The plan would have denied citizenship documents to U.S.-born children of foreign nationals on temporary visas or without lawful status.
The decision leaves children born to parents on student, work, or tourist visas eligible to receive U.S. passports, Social Security numbers, and citizenship rights at birth. Children born to undocumented parents remain covered as well.
The order also would have withheld benefits including SNAP, Medicaid, and other services tied to citizenship. The ruling prevents those planned denials.
Advocacy groups, including the ACLU and the Presidents’ Alliance, said the decision prevents the creation of a "permanent subclass" of people born in the United States who would lack citizenship rights.
The ruling reaffirmed the jus soli, or right-of-the-soil, principle associated with the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The principle provides citizenship based on birth in the country, subject to the legal rules applied by the court.
Supporters move the dispute toward Congress
Rep. John McGuire, R-VA, introduced the "Birthright Citizenship Clarification Act of 2026" on July 9, 2026. The bill, H.R. 9633, seeks to pursue the same restrictions by changing federal law rather than relying on an executive order.
Kavanaugh’s concurrence also pointed to Congress as a possible venue for changing the governing statute. Any legislative proposal would proceed separately from the closed rehearing window.
The administration has recently seen several signature policies blocked by the court. DHS General Counsel James Percival issued a statement on June 25, 2026, celebrating other wins involving asylum restrictions and the termination of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS.
Percival called those outcomes "victories for the rule of law and common sense." His statement addressed the other cases, not the loss in Trump v. Barbara.
The Department of Homeland Security had also issued material on the order’s planned implementation before the ruling. USCIS guidance described how officials would have handled citizenship documents if the policy had survived judicial review.
The July 27 deadline has now passed without a rehearing petition. The administration’s effort to impose the restriction through executive action therefore moves no further in that case, while H.R. 9633 remains the identified congressional vehicle for seeking similar changes.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
