Birthright citizenship win is huge, but worrisome
- Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which states that all those born in the U.S. are citizens, regardless of the status of their parents.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily. The order would’ve been enacted retroactively to all children born under such circumstances beginning Feb. 19, 2025.
The ruling came as a rare loss for Trump from a majority-conservative court — underscoring the absurdity of the framing from which the Trump legal team was operating.
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts explained the constitutional rationale behind the decision.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
Cecillia Wang, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said the decision was a substantial victory because it affirmed that the “president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”
Ever a gracious loser, Trump signaled that he’s not done pursuing this topic, writing on Truth Social that his political allies could “easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President.”
The ruling lands as a big win for U.S. Latinos as the demographic would be the most affected if the conditions surrounding birthright citizenship changed.
According to a UCLA analysis of 2022 data from the Urban Institute’s count of children of immigrants, 75% of all children in the U.S. — totaling 4 million people — with noncitizen parents were Latino. UCLA researchers estimated that approximately half of Latino children born to noncitizen parents would be affected if the Supreme Court had ruled Trump’s executive orders constitutional.
“The decision really affirms that Latino kids, regardless of who their parents are ... are members of our country,” Amada Armenta, the director of UCLA’s Latino Policy & Politics Institute, told The Times.
Armenta said she was glad about the ruling but found it “alarming” that the issue of birthright citizenship was up for debate in the first place. She was also upset by how the court was split on the conclusion.
“The decision to provide birthright citizenship in 1898 [in United States vs. Wong Kim Ark] was a 6-2 decision and 1898 was the height of American immigration racism with the Chinese Exclusion Act [and] all of these obviously racist laws on the books as a nation,” Armenta said. “When the Supreme Court had to decide that case, they decided it more decisively than this one.”
She said the level of xenophobia behind the dissenting judges’ opinions and the segment of the U.S. population that rallied around an end to birthright citizenship were concerning.
“There’s something deeply painful about being part of a group where you know that there are people in the country, including the government, who wish that you weren’t a member,” Armenta said.
The overriding emotion the UCLA educator felt was relief upon hearing the news because it signaled one fewer roadblock for Latino families in this country.
“I think there’s just so much political uncertainty about a lot of other social issues that harm our ability to thrive,” she said. “There’s still all of these exclusionary measures that exist. We only have to think of last summer, what it felt like to live in L.A. and to have that tangible experience that the government thinks it’s OK to question Latinos based on what they look like.”
Juan Proaño, chief executive of the League of United Latin American Citizens, encouraged Latinos to take a “victory lap” but, just like Armenta, expressed a bit of cynicism about the ruling.
“There’s a lot to be proud of. ... This will benefit a lot of immigrant families,” Proaño told The Times. “I feel it sort of falls flat because technically speaking, nothing changes, right? It’s like we were going upstream on something that shouldn’t have really ever been an issue.”
The fact that the ruling was not unanimously in favor of preserving the current interpretation of the Citizenship Clause was unsurprising but deeply disturbing to Proaño.
He hoped that the decision animates Latinos to mobilize.
“We have to be ever vigilant, we’ll take the win, but we have to be very thoughtful about this,” Proaño said. “What we can do is educate our community, make sure that they’re informed, make sure that they’re registered to vote and they can participate in the upcoming election cycle, because that’s the only thing that’s going to stem the attack on immigrants in this country.”
Personally, I’m underwhelmed and frustrated by the ruling.
I’m mad that this whole farce of a Supreme Court case was even heard in the first place. It was truly a waste of time and resources and only further caused fear to millions of already vulnerable Americans.
It all just felt like one big vibe check for the right-wing nativist movement on where all the Supreme Court justices stood so they could find another avenue to revisit this issue with a more specific attack.
Despite all that, I’m glad that the parameters of birthright citizenship remained intact and I think it’s fittingly beautiful that so close to Independence Day, many Latinos will be able to feel a real sense of freedom and security thanks to this Supreme Court decision. It also notably comes at a time when the U.S. Men’s National Team leading scorer in the World Cup, Folarin Balogun, is someone who is allowed to represent the U.S. thanks to birthright citizenship.
But I don’t love that the potential for so many Latinos to become second-class citizens by law rested in the hands of Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. That doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.
It’s also worth noting that while Kavanaugh sided with the majority in affirming that Trump’s orders violated a federal statute, he aligned himself with dissenters on saying that the mandates didn’t violate the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
What’s even crazier to think is that Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh will now be perceived as some of the more level-headed justices — they are not! Our society’s perception of what a moderate looks like has simply skewed so rightward.
Maybe I’m a cynic and I should just enjoy the win, but that feels impossible when basic human rights are challenged yearly in the Supreme Court and Latinos continue to face an onslaught of attacks from the Trump administration.
But there should be no shame in celebrating a win, no matter how ridiculous a circumstance it comes by. Lord knows we could use it.
An ode to the fermented drink of Colima, Mexico
On a recent trip to Colima, the least-populated Mexican state, Times food editor Daniel Hernandez indulged in the traditional fermented drink known as tuba. Made from the sap of the coconut palm tree, the regional delight is cultivated by artisans and has roots in the Philippines that trace back to 1565.
The beverage is often served as tuba compuesta, which features muddled red berries and diced apples — giving it a bright pink coloring — and is topped with peanuts.
Tuba is currently having a resurgence in Colima, with the drink being sold by industrious street vendors and swanky mixologists alike. It is such a delicacy that some visitors freeze it and travel with it back to the U.S., one street vendor told Hernandez.
For Angelenos interested in trying tuba, they can sip the beverage at Raspados Nayarit in Lincoln Heights. The store’s offering is a rarity in L.A., and according to its owners, 80% to 90% of the clientele is people originally from Colima who are seeking a taste of home.
Outside of his tuba experience, Hernandez ate at renowned chef Nico Mejía’s restaurants in Colima’s port city of Manzanillo, sampled regional beers, partook in the state’s cafe culture, enjoyed the region’s popular pozole seco dish and explored the ancient history of the area.
You can read more about Hernandez’s experiences and insights on the often-overlooked Mexican state here.
Comic: How to help in Venezuela
Andrea Cáceres is a Venezuelan-born illustrator, author and art director based in NYC. As an immigrant, she draws from her own journey to create work that celebrates identity, belonging and the bond between pets and people.
Stories we read this week that we think you should read
Unless otherwise noted, stories below were published by the Los Angeles Times.
Politics and immigration
- Supreme Court rejects Trump’s plan to limit birthright citizenship
- Noncitizen voting, police oversight measures fail to make Nov. 3 ballot in L.A.
- Inside the California ICE detention boycott over $18 coffee grounds, $21 tampon boxes
- Chaos, long lines overwhelm L.A.’s immigration courts, leading to default deportation orders
- Supreme Court rules that states may ban trans athletes from girls’ sports teams
- California leaders cheer Supreme Court ballot ruling while eyeing other ways to speed count
- ICE releases a Texas nun intercepted walking to church dressed in her habit (AP)
- Court sentences 7 more to prison over shooting at Texas immigration detention center (AP)
- President Trump and the citizenship debate: A Tijuana story (AP)
Arts & Entertainment
- U.S.-born Brian Gutiérrez and Obed Vargas signal a new era for Mexico’s national team
- Indie folk singer Selines grapples with the meaning of home in ‘(Nostalgia)’
- Jesús Ortiz Paz and Jimmy Humilde took their legal dispute to Instagram. Here’s the breakdown
- How Mexico’s World Cup run brought a small Oregon town to life (ESPN)
- On 10th anniversary, Boleros de Noche’s legacy is celebrated by L.A. City Hall
- Alannah Keyser is latest fired ‘Love Island USA’ contestant to apologize for using a racist slur
- He thought old-school Hollywood silent films were missing one thing — Minions
Venezuela earthquake coverage
- Deported to Venezuela, then trapped beneath quake rubble
- His family trapped in Venezuelan quakes, he turned to social media for help
- SoCal sends rescuers, supplies to Venezuela after massive quakes as hope battles despair
- Before Venezuela earthquakes, engineers warned tall buildings could collapse atop soft soil
- Family of Argentine soccer player Lucas Trejo killed by Venezuelan earthquakes
- Venezuelan medics fear infections from quake injuries as search for untold dead continues (AP)
- Mexico’s legendary rescue brigade heads to Venezuela as earthquakes’ death toll tops 2,200 (AP)
- Venezuelans search more earthquake ruins as attention turns to humanitarian crisis (AP)
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The column portrays the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision striking down President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship as a necessary but “underwhelming” win, stressing that the ruling merely preserves long-settled law rather than expanding rights, and that the case itself amounted to a waste of time and a source of fear for millions of vulnerable Americans.[1][3][4][27]
The article underscores Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion as constitutionally correct and even “beautiful” in its language about citizenship as “the right to have rights,” yet frames the very fact that birthright citizenship was seriously contested—and decided by only a six-justice majority—as alarming evidence of how far right the legal and political landscape has shifted.[1][3][23]
Drawing heavily on expert commentary from Latino scholars and advocates, the piece highlights that Latino children in mixed-status families would have borne the brunt of Trump’s policy, echoing research and advocacy organizations that have emphasized how birthright citizenship protects millions of U.S.-born children of noncitizen parents and anchors their families’ economic and civic futures.[14][16][17][22][25]
The column amplifies concerns voiced by Latino policy experts that the narrow margin and the tenor of the dissent reflect heightened xenophobia, noting the pain of belonging to a group whose membership in the national community is openly questioned by segments of the public and by high-level officials.[10][17][22]
The article adopts a skeptical view of the conservative justices, arguing that it is disturbing that the security of so many Latinos’ status depended in part on Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, and contending that their partial alignment with the majority will now be misread as “moderation” even though the dissent and some concurrence suggested narrower understandings of the Citizenship Clause.[4][6][10]
The piece interprets Trump’s reaction—insisting that allies can “make it up in Congress through legislation”—as proof that the ruling was used as a “vibe check” for the right-wing nativist movement rather than as a good-faith legal dispute, and as a sign that efforts to limit birthright citizenship will likely continue through other channels.[5][6][9][13]
The column stresses that, for many Latinos, the ruling brings real if fragile relief, removing one immediate threat to their ability to “thrive” amid broader political uncertainty; however, it insists that the win feels constrained because basic human rights face recurring Supreme Court challenges and anti-immigrant measures remain pervasive in policy and enforcement.[16][17][26][29]
Finally, the article urges Latino communities to treat the decision as both a moment for celebration and a call to political mobilization—echoing Latino civic organizations that see the ruling as a reason to register, vote, and organize in order to fend off future attacks on immigrants and their U.S.-born children.[19][25][29]
Different views on the topic
In contrast to the column’s ambivalence, many civil-rights and immigrant-rights organizations describe the ruling as an unequivocal, historic victory, emphasizing that it “reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen,” and that no president can rewrite the Constitution by executive order.[11][12][14][16][17][20]
Several legal analyses stress that the decision provides strong, stabilizing precedent, arguing that the Court has now “shut the door” on executive efforts to narrow birthright citizenship and effectively ended serious legal debate absent a constitutional amendment—an interpretation more optimistic about the durability of the protection than the column’s anxious tone.[1][3][9][15][23][27]
Constitutional scholars have long maintained that the Citizenship Clause’s text and Reconstruction history clearly guarantee citizenship to all born on U.S. soil (with narrow exceptions), and some commentaries suggest the case was less a dangerous near-miss than a predictable affirmation of a rule presidents never had authority to change, challenging the article’s sense that the right hung precariously in the balance.[18][21][30]
National Latino and civil-rights groups emphasize the stabilizing impact of the decision on millions of Latino children in mixed-status families and urge unreserved celebration, framing the outcome not as “flat” but as confirmation that birthright citizenship remains a cornerstone of equality and economic mobility, and highlighting broad networks of support for defending it.[14][16][17][19][22][25][29]
Public-opinion data cited by national media show that a clear majority of Americans oppose ending birthright citizenship, with majorities of Democrats and independents and a sizable minority of Republicans favoring preservation; these analyses suggest that, while attacks exist, the policy enjoys deeper popular backing than the column’s focus on nativist sentiment conveys.[2]
Some commentators sympathetic to the Court’s institutional role worry less about the narrow margin and more about what they see as judicial overreach, arguing that Roberts’ opinion went further than necessary by broadly constitutionalizing birthright citizenship and potentially limiting future democratic debate—a critique that diverges from the column’s main concern with rightward drift and instead questions the Court’s assertiveness.[7][10]
On the other side of the issue, conservative politicians and Trump administration allies portray birthright citizenship as a “magnet for illegal immigration” and “birth tourism,” contending that automatic citizenship for children of undocumented or temporary visitors incentivizes unlawful entry and strains public resources; they argue that the Court’s ruling entrenches a problematic status quo and insist that Congress should pursue statutory or constitutional changes.[13][24][28]
Restrictionist voices additionally argue that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should be read to require a stronger form of allegiance or domicile than the Court recognized, supporting the dissent’s more demanding interpretation and criticizing the majority for extending citizenship “to almost anyone born in the United States,” a position directly at odds with the article’s view that the existing rule is basic, nonnegotiable protection.[7][10][24]
Some law-and-order advocates responding to the ruling emphasize stepped-up immigration enforcement—such as recent ICE arrest surges—as necessary to counteract what they see as the pull of generous citizenship rules, framing aggressive enforcement rather than constitutional protection as the appropriate national response to unauthorized migration.[8][13][26]
Finally, while Trump’s defeat at the Court is widely acknowledged, supporters highlight his pledge to seek legislative remedies as a legitimate continuation of a democratic policy debate, asserting that questions about birthright citizenship should be decided by elected officials rather than courts—directly contrasting with the column’s portrayal of the case as an illegitimate “farce” and mere test of the justices’ ideological loyalties.[5][13][24][28]
