on Tuesday will rule on the constitutionality of order on declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily .
The decision comes on the final day of a Supreme Court term that has centered on Trump鈥檚 expansive claims of presidential power 鈥� and largely ruled in his favor.
The court on Monday handed Trump a major win by , with the exception of Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, who will retain her job over allegations of mortgage fraud.
Here’s the latest:
Several courts have blocked the citizenship restrictions
The justices are weighing Trump鈥檚 appeal of a lower-court ruling from New Hampshire that struck down the citizenship restrictions, one of several courts that have blocked them.
Trump signed the birthright citizenship order on the first day of his second term, but the restrictions have not taken effect anywhere in the country.
Dueling views on birthright citizenship
In oral arguments, Sauer, the lawyer for Trump鈥檚 administration, said that birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration and 鈥渞ewards illegal aliens who not only violate the immigration laws but also jump in front of those who follow the rules.鈥�
The practice 鈥渄emeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship,鈥� he told the court.
But the American Civil Liberties Union, which is challenging Trump鈥檚 order, sees it very differently.
鈥淚t鈥檚 one of the clearest statements of who we are as a country,鈥� the ACLU said in a statement. 鈥淣o matter who your parents are, if you鈥檙e born here, you belong here.鈥�
America鈥檚 views on birthright citizenship
Most Americans say they believe in birthright citizenship, though many are conflicted about exactly who it should apply to.
An April survey by of more than 2,500 U.S. adults found that about two-thirds say children born in the U.S. should get automatic citizenship. That number drops to 44% for Republicans.
But the poll also showed ambivalence when it came to specifics.
For example, 75% of U.S. adults support automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents in the country on work visas. Only about half, though, believe in it for children born to parents who are illegally in the country.
The court ruled Monday that states can count late-arriving mailed ballots
The rejected a Republican-led attack on laws in more than half the states and the District of Columbia that permit mailed ballots to arrive and be counted some number of days after the election, provided they are postmarked by Election Day.
The outcome spares officials the headache of changing their ballot rules just a few months before the 2026 midterm congressional elections.
In just over half of those states, the more forgiving deadlines apply only to ballots cast by military and overseas voters.
The government has faced judicial skepticism
During oral arguments, even many conservative justices appeared unconvinced by the government鈥檚 case.
鈥淚 can imagine it being messy in some applications,鈥� Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, asking Solicitor General D. John Sauer about the issue of abandoned infants.
鈥淲hat if you don鈥檛 know who the parents are?鈥� she asked.
Sauer started to say that question was addressed in the U.S. code, but Barrett quickly interrupted him.
鈥淵eah, yeah, yeah, yeah, but what about the Constitution?鈥� she asked.
How do most countries decide a child鈥檚 citizenship?
Outside of the Americas, most countries follow the legal principle of jus sanguinis, or 鈥渞ight of blood,鈥� with a child鈥檚 citizenship inherited from its parents, no matter the place of birth.
In the European Union, for example, no member states grant automatic, unconditional citizenship to children born to foreigners.
But American legal practice is descended in many ways from English common law, which had long provided for citizenship based on a child鈥檚 place of birth, the legal concept of jus soli, or 鈥渞ight of soil.鈥�
The UK, though, abandoned jus soli with the British Nationality Act of 1981.
Under the new rules, people born in the UK get citizenship only if at least one parent is a British citizen or has 鈥渟ettled status鈥� under the law.
The justices will read summaries of their opinions
The court will dive right into the remaining decisions when the justices take the bench at 10 a.m. ET.
The opinions are typically read in ascending order of seniority so that the most junior justice with an opinion goes first. Chief Justice John Roberts, who may well have the decision in the birthright citizenship case, would go last.
Monday鈥檚 ruling on federal agencies dramatically expanded presidential power
Other than at the Federal Reserve, with its role of setting interest rates, the court held that , despite federal laws that require a cause for such dismissals and a that had limited executive authority.
The justices allowed Fed governor Lisa Cook to stay in her job while she fights Trump鈥檚 effort to fire her over allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied.
With the six conservative justices in the majority, the nine-member court jettisoned its unanimous decision in Humphrey鈥檚 Executor that had limited when presidents can fire agencies鈥� board members 鈥� in part to try to ensure decision-making free of political influence.
鈥淲e hold that such protection from removal is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution,鈥� Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.
The court will also rule on trans athletes and campaign finances
In separate cases, the court will also decide:
Whether states can prohibit transgender athletes from playing on girls鈥� and women鈥檚 public school and college teams.
Whether to uphold a federal law more than 50 years old limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and the president.
The court seemed poised to reject Trump鈥檚 birthright citizenship limits during arguments in April
lasted more than two hours in a crowded courtroom that included Trump, the first sitting president to attend arguments at the nation鈥檚 highest court, and, in seats reserved for the justices鈥� guests, actor Robert De Niro.
Trump heard his administration鈥檚 top Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, face one skeptical question after another. Justices asked about the legal basis for the order and voiced more practical concerns.
鈥淚s this happening in the delivery room?鈥� Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked, drilling down into the logistics of how the government would actually figure out who is entitled to citizenship and who is not.
Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that Sauer was relying on quirky exceptions to citizenship to make a broad argument about people who are in the country illegally. 鈥淚鈥檓 not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples,鈥� Roberts said.
Justice Clarence Thomas sounded the most likely among the nine justices to side with Trump.
Copyright © 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.
