Immigration and citizenship

Executive Order 14160: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship

President: Donald J. Trump

Signed January 20, 2025, EO 14160 sought to deny citizenship documents to some U.S.-born children based on their parents’ status. The Supreme Court struck it down on June 30, 2026.

Status: Struck down · Supreme Court, June 30, 2026.

Is Executive Order 14160 still in effect? No. The page says courts blocked it from taking effect.

A birth-certificate-like document appears beside a courthouse and a closed barrier.
Birthright-citizenship litigation, illustrated symbolically; the document is not a real certificate or a current citizenship determination. EO Explained · site-generated editorial illustration · not documentary evidence.

What does Executive Order 14160 do?

The order instructed federal agencies not to recognize U.S. citizenship for two groups of children born in the United States: where the mother was unlawfully present and the father was neither a citizen nor lawful permanent resident, or where the mother’s presence was lawful but temporary and the father had neither status. It applied only to births occurring at least 30 days after the order.

Administration position: The administration said the Fourteenth Amendment did not automatically confer citizenship in the two circumstances described. The Supreme Court later rejected that interpretation.
SignedJanuary 20, 2025
Effective date intendedFebruary 19, 2025
Lead agenciesState, DOJ, DHS, SSA

What the court decided

Trump v. Barbara, opinion, June 30, 2026: the Court affirmed the New Hampshire injunction by a 6–3 judgment. Five justices joined Chief Justice Roberts's opinion holding that the Fourteenth Amendment protects citizenship at birth for U.S.-born children of parents unlawfully or temporarily present. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson joined that opinion. The Court read the Citizenship Clause in its historical context and applied United States v. Wong Kim Ark; the parents' immigration status alone did not place those children outside U.S. jurisdiction.

Justice Jackson wrote separately, joined by Justice Sotomayor as to its introduction and Part I. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the constitutional holding: he concluded that the order conflicted with 8 U.S.C. §1401(a) and that Congress could amend the statute. Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Gorsuch; Justices Alito and Gorsuch also wrote dissents. The dissenting opinions disputed the majority's reading of the Citizenship Clause. The Supreme Court docket records the judgment issued August 3, 2026; it lists no rehearing petition.

Before and after

Before the order

Federal agencies generally treated a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction as a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. §1401(a), subject to established narrow exceptions.

Parental temporary or unlawful presence was not itself a federal bar to the child’s citizenship.

After the order

EO 14160 proposed two additional parent-status-based exclusions for future births.

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court held those proposed exclusions violate the Citizenship Clause. The government cannot implement EO 14160. A later order, EO 14418, addresses other historically recognized categories and is legally distinct.

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court held that EO 14160 violated the Citizenship Clause. The government cannot enforce the order. EO 14418 addresses a different set of specified categories, including foreign-government employees and alleged citizenship fraud; it does not revive EO 14160.

Who had to do what

Agency / officeActionTiming / position
State DepartmentDo not issue citizenship documents within the two stated categoriesNever took effect under EO 14160; injunction affirmed June 30, 2026
Department of Homeland SecurityAlign immigration and citizenship policiesNever took effect under EO 14160; injunction affirmed June 30, 2026
Social Security AdministrationDecline documents relying on citizenship recognition covered by the orderNever took effect under EO 14160; injunction affirmed June 30, 2026
Attorney GeneralIssue implementation guidance with other agenciesNever took effect under EO 14160; injunction affirmed June 30, 2026

What happened next

EO 14160 signed.

A federal judge temporarily blocked the order; other courts later entered preliminary injunctions.

In Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court limited universal injunctions without deciding whether EO 14160 was constitutional.

The District of New Hampshire provisionally certified a class and issued a classwide preliminary injunction in Barbara v. Trump.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument.

In Trump v. Barbara, the Court affirmed the injunction by a 6–3 judgment; five justices joined the constitutional holding.

The Supreme Court issued judgment. The docket lists no rehearing petition.

EO 14418 set a separate policy concerning children whose parents meet its specified categories.

Common questions

Is birthright citizenship still the law?

Yes. The Supreme Court held on June 30, 2026 that U.S.-born children of parents unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.

What was the Supreme Court vote on birthright citizenship?

The injunction was affirmed 6–3. Five justices joined the constitutional holding; Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment on statutory grounds.

Can Congress change birthright citizenship?

The five-justice constitutional holding protects the children covered by this case. Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately that Congress could amend 8 U.S.C. §1401(a), but that was not the Court’s holding.

Does EO 14418 bring back the birthright citizenship order?

No. EO 14418 addresses separately specified categories, including foreign-government employees and alleged citizenship fraud; it does not reinstate EO 14160.