Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas isn't playing around when it comes to the subject of birthright citizenship; he's firmly against it and is happy to let the world, not to mention his fellow justices who voted in favor of it, know it. In a 91-page dissent, in which he was joined by fellow Justice Neil Gorsuch, Thomas argued that the majority got the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause wrong.
As RedState's Joe Cunningham reported, the Supreme Court on Tuesday handed down a 5-4 decision that affirmed the lower court decision in Trump v. Barbara, which held that children born in the U.S. to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth. Thomas's dissent was joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Alito filed a separate dissent, and Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment and dissented in part, while Justices Barrett, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion.
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that children born on U.S. soil to parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the country are American citizens at birth, striking down President Trump's effort to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause through executive action.
In a 5-4 decision in Trump v. Barbara, the Court affirmed a lower court injunction blocking Executive Order 14160, which Trump signed on his first day back in office in January 2025. The order had instructed federal agencies to stop recognizing citizenship for children whose parents lacked permanent legal status.
As Joe noted in his reporting, "[T]he Court leaned heavily on United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 precedent holding that the Citizenship Clause incorporates English common law's 'right of the soil' doctrine, with narrow exceptions for children of foreign diplomats." The ruling invalidates the Executive Order signed by President Trump that used the 14th Amendment to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who had no permanent legal ties to the U.S.
READ MORE: Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship, Strikes Down Trump Executive Order in 5-4 Vote
A Loss for Trump in the Birthright Citizenship Case Doesn’t Have to Be a Loss for America
Thomas' scathing dissent accused the majority of "devaluing citizenship" by making it "a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens."
BREAKING: Justice Clarence Thomas pens a scathing dissent after the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship.
— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 30, 2026
Thomas accuses the majority of “repurposing” the 14th Amendment “to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and… pic.twitter.com/uMEI9C1ct0
BREAKING: Justice Clarence Thomas pens a scathing dissent after the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship.
Thomas accuses the majority of “repurposing” the 14th Amendment “to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot find support in its text.”
“Today, the Court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.”
“I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.’ Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.”
Referring back to cases such as Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott – in which, he argued, the 14th Amendment was correctly applied to give citizenship to freed slaves and their children – Thomas wrote:
“The court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens,” Thomas wrote in a dissent. “In doing so, the court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.”
"The Citizenship Clause," Thomas maintained, "was consistently interpreted not to apply to the children of foreign temporary visitors, who were by definition not domiciled in the United States."
“I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship,’” Thomas added. “Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.”
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member