Trump Administration Rejects Supreme Court Ruling on Birthright Citizenship

The Donald Trump administration is showing no plans of giving up despite the US Supreme Court handing it a major 6-3 loss by striking down one of the president’s biggest agendas: limiting birthright citizenship in the United States . Trump and Vice President JD Vance brushed off the legal defeat on social media and in a public interview, respectively. Both top US officials stressed that the current administration is weighing options to close what they’ve labelled a “loophole” in the system. The POTUS even brought up the possibility of calling on US Congress to pass a new law to ban birthright citizenship. Trump took to his social media platform and slammed the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold birthright citizenship, describing it as “too bad for our country.” “We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process,” he wrote on Truth Social. “No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!” One of Trump’s top advisors, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, also said on X, “One of the most destructive and outrageous decisions in the long history of the Supreme Court. American citizenship is not the birthright of the world. It belongs only and solely to Americans. No provision of the Constitution can be read to require our national self-obliteration.” Speaking to ‘The Ingraham Angle’ on Fox News, the US vice president said the fight over the issue was far from over. Signalling that the Trump administration was exploring ways to “close down that loophole,” JD Vance argued that the court was responsible for creating the problem in the first place. Calling the ruling a “major mistake,” he continued, “One of the things that it might invite, Laura, is people to come here quite literally on a vacation, give birth, and then all of a sudden the child and their family have the full benefits of American citizenship.” “It’s just a preposterous ruling, and the absurdity of that outcome suggests why the Supreme Court should have went the other way,” he added. While branding Trump’s views on birthright citizenship limitations as unconstitutional, Chief Justice John Roberts (alongside the court’s liberal minority and Justice Amy Coney Barrett) said that the 14th Amendment allowed automatic citizenship to almost all children born in the country, including those who may have been born to parents residing in the country illegally. “The trouble is that there is scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view,” Roberts said while alluding to Trump’s executive order, which was signed following his return to office in 2025. D John Sauer, the Trump admin’s lawyer, on the other hand, said during arguments that the automatic US citizenship had promoted a “birth tourism” industry, adding that “uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades.” However, a Penn State study released this week analysed official data and found that less than 0.3% of all births in the US in any particular year were linked to tourists. Trump signed that executive order with the aim of preventing babies born to undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign-born residents from automatically becoming Americans. According to the Pew Research Centre, more than six million people born in the US live with at least one undocumented immigrant parent. Right after the Tuesday ruling, Trump wasn’t alone in urging Congress to pass a bill or a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. Some Senate Republicans have since joined the chorus, even if it means risking their narrow majority in the House and Senate ahead of November’s midterm elections. Many already expect such a potential bill or a constitutional amendment to fall flat in the Senate, where a 60-vote threshold is required. Even if all Republicans in the Senate give it a go-ahead, the proposal would demand at least seven Democrats to join them.