On July 8, 2026, former President Donald Trump announced he will immediately ask the US Supreme Court to rehear its June ruling rejecting his executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship [1, 2]. The court ruled 6-3 on June 30 that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on US soil, including children of illegal or temporary residents [1, 3, 4]. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion affirming all such children are "citizens at birth," overruling Trump's attempt to limit citizenship to children of US citizens or lawful permanent residents [1, 5].
Trump called the ruling a "miscarriage of justice" and "absolutely insane," saying on Truth Social, "AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS NOT FOR SALE! In fact, that is a crime, and therefore, the Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong" [1, 5]. He also claimed signs and billboards advertising "birthright citizenship deliveries" starting at $4,000 are appearing along the southern border and across the country, labeling it a "scam" that will generate billions illegally [6, 7, 5].
The executive order Trump signed on January 20, 2025, his first day back in office, sought to restrict birthright citizenship to children born only to US citizens or lawful permanent residents, aiming to overhaul immigration policy [1, 8, 9]. The Supreme Court's decision marks a major defeat for Trump's immigration agenda [1, 8].
Requests for rehearing must be filed within 25 days of the ruling, but such requests are rare and historically seldom granted. The court has not granted rehearing for an argued case since 1965 and last reversed a ruling in 1956 [3, 10, 11]. Analysts say Trump's chance of success is low given the court's high bar to reopen settled cases [4, 10, 12].
Trump urged Republicans in Congress to pursue legislation to restrict birthright citizenship, though public opinion strongly favors the current practice and the court indicated only a constitutional amendment could change the rule [8, 5].
Trump’s request for a rehearing puts the Supreme Court on a tight timeline to decide whether to revisit a rare and impactful ruling just drawn in late June.
