First off, a Royal Salute toast to Daily Tribune for 26 years of journalistic excellence. 30 June being this newspaper’s 26th anniversary, it behooves this writer to come up with something meaningfully relevant to pay tribute to this important milestone.

And what’s more fitting than writing about a historic US Supreme Court decision which, either by sheer luck or by Divine Providence, was handed down on the very same day, marking the rebirth of America’s birthright citizenship that mirrors this publication’s journalistic renaissance.

To the people of the world, rejoice. 30 June 2026 is when America’s birthright citizenship principle won the day — and it is here to stay.

By a 6-3 majority decision penned by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and concurred in by two other conservative members — Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Barrett — along with the Court’s three liberal members — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Jackson — the US Supreme Court emphatically ruled in Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365) that:

“Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.” (Decision’s syllabus, p. 1)

In voiding and declaring unconstitutional the Trump administration’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship to children of US citizens and legal permanent residents, the Court flatly rejected the government’s position that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment did not intend to include children born of people who were in the country illegally or temporarily for not being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

It also dismissed the government’s argument that the principal purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant US citizenship to former slaves since they had already established allegiance to their new country — which does not apply to people who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas whose allegiance remains with their home countries, and thus are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Additionally, the Court also thumbed down the argument that domicile is a strict barometer for granting US citizenship, explaining that allegiance is not tied to one’s domicile and that citizenship and domicile are two distinct concepts.

Citing a litany of common law cases, statutes, and historical narratives revolving around the grant of US citizenship to African-American slaves and their descendants, with special mention of the odious Dredd Scott v. Sandford decision which racially excluded black Americans from obtaining automatic citizenship, the Court explained that the 14th Amendment was passed precisely to prevent the abhorrent Dredd Scott decision from rearing its ugly head again via legislative action or judicial revivification.

With regard to the landmark case of US v. Wong Kim Ark, the applicability of which the government had vigorously sought to narrow down to children of persons domiciled in the US, the Court held that nowhere in the historical texts or ratification documents of the Citizenship Clause does it appear that domicile is a strict requirement for jus soli citizenship.

What does all this mean moving forward? Simple. The status quo is retained and all people born on US soil, except children of foreign diplomats and hostile invaders, are deemed American citizens by birth.