politics
Does the Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship make sense?
Key takeaways
- But all of their babies were U.S. citizens, because they were born on U.S. soil.
- Birthright citizenship is uncommon.
- On Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump tried to end it in the U.S. with an executive order.
Why this matters: political developments that affect policy direction and public trust.
But all of their babies were U.S. citizens, because they were born on U.S. soil. This is known as birthright citizenship, or jus soli (Latin for right of the soil ).
Birthright citizenship is uncommon. Only 33 of the world s 191 countries have it.
On Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump tried to end it in the U.S. with an executive order. He declared that the 14th Amendment s birthright citizenship provision does not apply to babies whose mothers are unlawfully present in the U.S. or have only temporary lawful status, and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Article preview — originally published by The Hill. Full story at the source.
Read full story on The Hill →
More top stories
Also covered by
Al Jazeera
Supreme Court’s divided ruling on birthright citizenship may be revisited
Fortune
The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship ruling hands the U.S. economy a $7.7 trillion win
ABC Australia
What the Supreme Court ruling means for Trump's bid to restrict birthright citizenship
Al Jazeera
Why is MAGA in meltdown over the Supreme Court birthright ruling?
Aggregated and edited by the Scoop newsroom. We surface news from The Hill alongside other reporting so you can compare coverage in one place.
Editorial policy · Corrections · About Scoop