What the Supreme Court Ruling on Birthright Citizenship Means for Travel

What does the Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship mean?

The Supreme Court decision did not overturn birthright citizenship in the US nor rule on its constitutionality. Instead, the justices ruled to limit nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts, which were legal maneuvers that, until now, had prevented the executive order from progressing.

“The Court essentially held that even if an executive order were clearly unconstitutional, federal judges’ decisions could only protect the specific people who sue, not everyone who might be harmed,” explains Elizabeth Ricci, a partner at Rambana & Ricci and an adjunct professor of immigration law at Florida State University.

When will the executive order go into effect?

While the Supreme Court’s ruling did not directly address the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, it did clear the path for the executive order to be applied.

However, the justices set a 30-day delay, giving politicians, legal experts, and immigrant rights groups until July 27, 2025, to apply any new legal maneuvers, such as class action lawsuits.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a nationwide class action lawsuit challenging the birthright citizenship order that is scheduled for a July 10 hearing. If the judge rules in the ACLU’s favor, it would stop the executive order from going into effect.

If a state hasn’t previously challenged the executive order (or doesn’t before July 27), and if none of the other lawsuits succeed in winning nationwide relief before July 27, then the order will go into effect in that state on that date. The White House has until then to outline how the US government will enforce the changes of its executive order in the states where it can go into effect.

Which states have challenged the decision to end birthright citizenship?

Already, 22 states (plus Washington, DC) have asked federal judges to block Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, which, Michael Cataliotti, an immigration lawyer at Cataliotti Law, says is an “indication of where the policies and practices will preserve birthright citizenship as a basis of the constitutional framework.” Those states include:

The other 28 states have not challenged the order, though Ricci says that doesn’t necessarily mean they support it. “They may just be waiting to see how litigation develops, preparing their own legal challenges, or even punting due to political constraints.” Still, if they don’t challenge the order (and no other ruling blocks adoption nationally), it will go into effect on or after July 27, which could lead to a patchwork approach to how birthright citizenship is applied in the US.

For those states where a judge has already blocked the policy of ending birthright citizenship, the executive order can’t be enforced there—for now. After July 27, plaintiffs in each case remain protected from the executive order, at least until the courts rule on the individual lawsuits. This protection isn’t indefinite—it lasts as long as the preliminary injunction is in place for those named plaintiffs. So, while those plaintiffs won’t be affected by the executive order on July 27, that protection is not permanent—it hinges on the outcome of the case and any future rulings.

And there’s an additional catch: The Supreme Court recently ruled that these court orders can only protect people actually involved in the case, unless the case has been certified as a class action. So, unless those states win broader protections for all affected residents, some families might still fall through the cracks.

What are the potential implications on travel, if birthright citizenship ends?

Under the executive order, children born after July 27, 2025, to undocumented or temporary-status parents could lose automatic citizenship—unless covered by an injunction or successful class action. Cataliotti added that it would even extend to the children of visa holders in the US with lawful but non-immigrant status (such as B-1/B-2 visitors, F-1 students, H-1B, L-1, TN, and O-1 visa holders).

This could potentially result in US-born babies being deported, even though their parents could remain legally in the country, says Juan Rivera, an immigration attorney at Juan C Rivera PLLC. A Trump lawyer has confirmed that there will be no immediate deportations until after the order goes into effect on July 27, Reuters reports.

“Depending on where visa holders are located and where their children are born, the child may be deemed an American and issued a birth certificate…or not,” Cataliotti says. “If there’s ongoing litigation in, say, California, those children will likely be considered US citizens. If we’re looking at Texas, those children are not likely going to be considered US citizens. It’s an absolute mess.”

“This creates a potential cohort of stateless or noncitizen US-born children, with significant legal and social implications,” Rivera adds.

A stateless child is not recognized as a national by the laws of any nation, often due to being born in a country that doesn’t grant birthright citizenship, having parents who are not citizens of any nation, or because their status was stripped due to ethnic or religious reasons. This means they don’t have the legal rights and protections afforded to citizens of any country and also face difficulties accessing basic rights like health care and education, as many countries require citizenship for these services. The UN says at least 4.4 million people are currently stateless around the world.

If a baby is born in the US but isn’t a recognized citizen, Rivera says that they might be able to stay: “If the parents are in the US on legal visas, the child might be able to stay temporarily as a dependent (or derivative) on the parent’s visa. But that child would not be a US citizen and wouldn’t have the right to stay permanently.”

Still, without recognized citizenship, it would also mean those children will not be eligible for a US passport, which is issued at the federal level, says Bradford Bernstein, an immigration attorney at Spar & Bernstein. “These children not having a passport will create serious travel complications, including the inability to travel internationally, reenter the US, or prove legal status within the country.”

Rivera said that the policy does not apply retroactively, so children born before July 27 keep their citizenship, but he added that “obtaining a US passport would be wise to have additional proof of citizenship. Similarly, for babies born after that date, parents should consider applying for passports quickly. That may help resolve their child’s status before it becomes a legal gray area.”

Because the US Constitution protects the right to move freely between states, Rivera says there is no precedent for citizenship check points when traveling between US states if the order is applied unevenly. Still, if a child isn’t recognized as a citizen in one state, they may have trouble getting a birth certificate, passport, or social services.

“These kinds of bureaucratic hurdles could feel a lot like internal ‘checkpoints’—even if they’re not called that,” Rivera says.

What’s next?

Jennifer Behm, a partner at Berardi Immigration Law, says that, for now, the issue of whether or not birthright citizenship is a federal right protected by the US constitution will remain a question for the lower courts.

“The core question—whether the executive order violates the 14th Amendment—will now be tested in the appeals courts,” Behm says. “Conflicting rulings across circuits would likely force the Supreme Court to revisit the issue and decide the constitutional merits. The first round was about procedure. The next will ask if a president can rewrite the meaning of citizenship itself.”

She adds: “I do not believe the administration will ultimately succeed in redefining the Constitution and overturning centuries of legal precedent through a single executive order, but the constitutional fight is still ahead.”

How is citizenship granted around the world?

Citizenship is granted around the world primarily through two methods: jus soli (right of the soil) and jus sanguinis (right of blood). Jus soli grants citizenship to individuals born within a country’s territory, regardless of their parents’ nationality, while jus sanguinis grants citizenship based on the nationality or ethnicity of one or both parents.

“Some countries, like Germany, combine the two—requiring that at least one parent has legal ties to the country,” Rivera says. “The US and Canada are among the few that grant citizenship automatically to almost every child born on their soil. That’s why this shift is such a big deal: It breaks with a long-standing tradition, both legally and culturally.”

Several countries also allow individuals to claim citizenship based on their ancestry, even if they were not born there. For example, Ireland and Italy provide citizenship to people who can trace their ancestry back to a citizen of those countries, often up to several generations. This is known as citizenship by descent and is a form of jus sanguinis with a broader historical connection.

A growing number of countries offer citizenship by investment programs, allowing individuals to obtain citizenship by making significant financial contributions to the country, such as purchasing property, creating jobs, or making donations to national development projects. Countries like Panama and Malta are popular for these programs. These alternative pathways to citizenship add another layer of complexity to how nationality is granted globally, offering options for individuals with historical ties or substantial financial means to obtain citizenship beyond traditional means.