最高法院周二驳回了唐纳德·特朗普总统试图结束与生俱来的公民权在美国，通过行政命令，重申了一个多世纪的法律先例和国家传统，即在美国土地上出生的婴儿自动成为美国公民。
6比3的裁决对特朗普是一个打击，他曾游说法院支持他的裁决第一天订单并出席了该案的口头辩论，成为第一位这样做的在任总统。他认为非法或临时居民所生的孩子不应该获得美国公民身份。
1868年批准的第14修正案规定，所有“在美国出生或归化并受其管辖的人”都是公民。国会后来在1940年将同样的语言编入联邦公民法。
代表大多数人的首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨说，文本的简单含义明确适用于所有在美国出生的儿童，无论他们父母的法律地位如何。
“公民身份，无论是过去还是现在，都是拥有权利的权利——自由参与我们的政治社区，”罗伯茨写道。“第十四修正案的制定者将这一承诺扩展到这片土地上每一个自由出生的人。我们今天信守这一承诺。”
罗伯茨和大多数法官，包括艾米·科尼·巴雷特(Amy Coney Barrett)、索尼娅·索托马约尔、埃琳娜·卡根和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克森(Ketanji Brown Jackson)，拒绝了特朗普政府的说法，即修正案的目的是只涵盖那些在美国有永久住所的人，而不仅仅是临时联系。
“那么,‘受制于’美国的司法管辖，就是生活在它的统治之下，”罗伯茨引用一部当代词典写道，“该条款对出生在‘美国’的人的领土关注强化了这一含义。”
他说，在美国土地上出生的孩子反过来“受”美国司法管辖，指的是美国管理其领土内的人的权力
最高法院在具有里程碑意义的1898年案件Wong Kim Ark v. U.S .中得出了同样的结论。罗伯茨在谈到这个先例时说:“我们今天没有理由背离这个观点。”。
三名法官不同意这一决定。
塞缪尔·阿利托法官称该裁决是一个“严重的错误”，因为害怕相反的决定会导致“不人道的结果”。
克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官和尼尔·戈萨奇大法官写道，无论是宪法还是联邦法律都没有“保证非美国居民的公民身份”
他们认为，鉴于一个国家的历史和传统，孩子父母的住所或合法永久住所是孩子公民身份的适当指标。
布雷特·卡瓦诺法官也不同意法院14日的裁决泰国(Thailand)修正案的理由，但表示，联邦法律显然使出生公民权广泛存在。他写道:“除非国会颁布(新)立法，否则行政命令违反了联邦法规。”。
特朗普似乎抓住了卡瓦诺的推理，推动国会通过一项新法律来限制出生公民权。
然而，还不清楚这样的立法如何避免违反14泰国(Thailand)五名大法官称该修正案包含了与生俱来的公民权。
众议院议长·迈克·约翰逊说，他对法院的决定感到“失望”，他提出了国会寻求宪法修正案的可能性。要通过该法案，需要国会两院三分之二的绝对多数和四分之三的州批准。
特朗普似乎不愿意等待修正案，他在帖子中写道，“没有必要进行冗长而笨拙的宪法修正案!国会应该从今天开始致力于结束对我们国家昂贵和不公平的出生公民权。我会全力支持他们!”
特朗普长期以来一直认为，非法移民和临时访客所生的孩子，像游客和外国学生一样，没有资格根据第14修正案获得公民身份，该修正案是在内战后制定的，旨在解决前奴隶及其后代的地位问题。
挑战这一政策变化的移民倡导者和公民自由团体警告说，这将伤害每年出生的数十万非公民父母的孩子，并给美国老年人带来官僚噩梦，他们将不再能够仅仅通过出生证明来证明公民身份。
“法院的判决重申了美国的一项基本承诺——如果你出生在这里，你就是美国公民。“总统不能通过行政命令改变宪法，”美国公民自由联盟法律主任汪诗诗说，他在法庭上为这个案件辩护我们勇敢的客户和我们的法律团队与全国数百万人站在一起，他们为我们最珍视的权利之一大声疾呼。宪法对与生俱来的公民身份的保障依然有效。"
根据移民政策研究所的数据，估计每年有255，000名非公民父母所生的孩子会根据该命令失去合法身份。有些人可能很难在任何国家获得公民身份，实际上生来就是“无国籍”。
每一个考虑过特朗普前所未有的命令的下级法院都认为它是非法的，发布命令将其搁置。高等法院的判决维持了现状。
Supreme Court rejects Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected President Donald Trump's attempt toend birthright citizenshipin the U.S. by executive order, reaffirming more than a century of legal precedent and national tradition that babies born on American soil are automatically American citizens.
The 6-3 decision is a blow to Trump, who had lobbied the court to uphold hisDay 1 orderand attended oral arguments in the case, becoming the first sitting president to do so.He had argued U.S. citizenship should be denied to children born to unlawful or temporary residents.
The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, says all "persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens. Congress later codified the same language in federal citizenship law in 1940.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the plain meaning of the text unambiguously applies to all children born in the U.S. regardless of the legal status of their parents.
"Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights -- to freely participate in our political community," Roberts wrote. "The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to every free-born person in this land. We keep that promise today."
Roberts and the majority, including justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, rejected Trump administration claims that the intent of the amendment was to cover only those with a permanent domicile in the country rather than just a temporary connection.
"To be 'subject to' the jurisdiction of the United States, then, is to live under its dominion," Roberts wrote, quoting a contemporary dictionary, "a meaning reinforced by the Clause's territorial focus on those born 'in' the United States."
He said children born on U.S. soil were, in turn, "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction, "referring to the power of the U.S. to govern those within its territory."
The Supreme Court reached the same conclusion in the landmark 1898 case, Wong Kim Ark v. U.S. "We see no reason to depart from that view today," Roberts said of the precedent.
Three justices dissented from the decision.
Justice Samuel Alito called the ruling a "serious mistake" driven by fear that a contrary decision would lead to "inhumane results."
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote that neither the Constitution nor federal law "guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States."
They argued that domicile, or the place of legal permanent home, of a child's parents is the appropriate indicator of a child's citizenship, given the nation's history and tradition.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh also dissented from the court's ruling on 14thAmendment grounds but said federal law clearly makes birthright citizenship widely available. "Unless and until Congress enacts [new] legislation, the executive order contravenes the federal statute," he wrote.
Trump appeared to seize on Kavanaugh's reasoning, pushing Congress to restrict birthright citizenship by passing a new law.
It is not clear, however, how such legislation could avoid violating the 14thAmendment, which five justices said enshrines birthright citizenship.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, who said he was "disappointed" with the court's decision, raised the possibility of Congress pursuing a constitutional amendment. For that to pass, it would take a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers of Congress and ratification from three-quarters of the states.
Trump appeared to be unwilling to wait for an amendment, writing in his post, "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!"
Trump has long argued that children born to unlawful immigrants and temporary visitors, like tourists and foreign students, do not qualify for citizenship under terms of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted after the Civil War to address the status of former slaves and their descendants.
Immigrant advocates and civil liberties groups challenging the policy change warned that it would harm hundreds of thousands of children born every year to non-citizen parents and create a bureaucratic nightmare for older Americans, who would no longer be able to prove citizenship simply with a birth certificate.
"The court's decision reaffirms a fundamental American promise -- if you are born here, you are a citizen.A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat," said ACLU legal director Cecilia Wang, who argued the case before the court. "Our brave clients and our legal team stand with millions of people around our country who spoke up for one of our most cherished rights. The Constitution's guarantee of birthright citizenship stands strong."
An estimated 255,000 children born every year to non-citizen parents would have lost legal status under the order, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Some may have faced difficulty establishing citizenship in any country, effectively being born as "stateless."
Every lower court to have considered Trump's unprecedented order deemed it unlawful, issuing orders to put it on hold. The high court's decision preserves the status quo.
