Peloni:  Another very bad decision for America, Americans, and Americanism…  Is there no greater authority than the insanity guiding America’s Supreme Court?  There is no basis in law, history or reason to birth foreign nationals with the rights, privileges and responsibilities of the American Republic.  The internationalization process as Pamela Geller describes so well as Birthright Tourism is now law of the land in America, diluting the national sovereignty of the American nation, and the further undoing of American enfranchisement.

By Pamela Geller | June 30, 2026

“Supreme Court” by Missy Caulk, CC BY-SA 2.0

This was not the founders had in mind. Birthright tourism.

Once again, Justices Roberts and Barrett joined the three liberal justices.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States, including those whose parents are in the country unlawfully or only temporarily, striking down President Trump’s executive order.

Trump suffers major Supreme Court defeat as justices uphold birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court’s ruling is a setback for President Donald Trump, who issued an executive order on his first day in office that would end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants

By Elaine Mallon, Fox News,June 30, 2026:

Supreme Court expected to release final opinions on birthright citizenship, transgender athletes
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected President Donald Trump’s bid to restrict birthright citizenship, preserving the long-standing constitutional interpretation that most children born in the United States are automatically U.S. citizens, including children born to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country.

ADVERTISEMENT

The ruling is a major setback for Trump, who made curbing birthright citizenship a key part of his immigration agenda.

Trump issued an executive order on his first day in office that would eliminate birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or are in the country temporarily.

Continued……

More here…..

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Landmark Birthright Citizenship Case

By: Athena Thorne  | PJM

 The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on the historic birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, on Tuesday morning.

In a 6-3 decision, the court struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order, which had ordered that U.S. citizenship not automatically be conferred upon children born on U.S. soil whose parents are illegally present in the United States, or whose mother is visiting here legally but temporarily and whose father is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident.Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson join the Roberts opinion in the full decision. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented.“Roberts concludes that children born to parents who are in the United States unlawfully or temporarily are ‘born in the United States’ and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ ‘Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth,’” wrote Supreme Court expert Amy Howe at Scotusblog’s live coverage of the announcement.

ADVERTISEMENT

In practice, the ruling means nothing changes, and the nation will continue as it has been doing. Namely, every baby born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen, regardless of the status of the parents. Apparently, it’s too much to ask that parents have at least the most basic allegiance to or standing in our country before we bestow its greatest gift — citizenship — on their offspring.

Howe added, “As others have noted, Kavanaugh writes that Trump’s EO conflicts with the federal law ‘[u]nless and until Congress enacts new legislation,” potentially leaving the door open for Congress to tighten up citizenship rules.

The ACLU originally filed the suit as a class-action lawsuit (Barbara v. Trump) on behalf of affected families. The lead plaintiff, “Barbara,” is a pregnant “asylum seeker” from Honduras, though the suit also represents other families of various residency statuses. Lower courts ruled for the plaintiffs, sending the case up the chain to the Supremes.

The court heard arguments in the case on April 1, 2026, notes a Congressional Research Service (CRS) legal sidebar:

The question before the Court was whether Executive Order 14160 (E.O. 14160, or the E.O.), “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” is constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that codifies the Citizenship Clause.

The EO stated that:

The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Beyond the 14th Amendment, the case further examined the meaning of the phrase “domiciled residents” from the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, Wong Kim Ark’s parents had maintained a legal, permanent domicile in the U.S. for over 20 years. Though not citizens (people born in China were prohibited from naturalizing at that time), the parents were legally present and conducting business here, and not serving in diplomatic roles. The Trump administration argued that this situation contrasts with that of foreign nationals who are illegally present in the country.

Trump’s signed E.O. 14160 on Inauguration Day 2025. The CRS sidebar explained the intent of the original order:

The E.O. seeks to interpret “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Citizenship Clause to limit who may be considered a U.S. citizen from birth.

[…]

The E.O. outlines two categories of persons that, in the view of the executive branch, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore are excluded from the Fourteenth Amendment’s grant of birthright citizenship: (1) a child whose mother was not lawfully present in the United States, and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, at the moment the child was born; and (2) a child whose mother was lawfully but temporarily in the United States, and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, at the moment the child was born. The E.O. asserts that children born in the United States to parents in either of these categories are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.