2026年6月30日 美国东部时间上午10:36 / 福克斯新闻
这一最高法院裁决对唐纳德·特朗普总统而言是一次挫折，他在就职首日便发布了一项行政令，旨在终止非法移民子女的出生公民权。
作者：伊莱恩·马伦，福克斯新闻
【新功能】您现在可以收听福克斯新闻的文章了！
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/635b1a91-6a74-460b-829a-57cb7e7ee328
收听本文
3分钟
美国最高法院周二驳回了特朗普总统限制出生公民权的诉求，保留了长期以来的宪法解释原则：绝大多数在美国出生的儿童自动成为美国公民，包括父母非法或临时留在美国境内的儿童。
这一裁决对特朗普而言是重大打击，将限制出生公民权列为其移民政策议程的核心内容。
最高法院表示：“父母非法或临时留在美国境内所生的子女，受美国司法管辖，根据第十四修正案的公民条款，他们出生时即为美国公民。”
“第十四修正案的制定者将这一承诺扩展到了‘这片土地上每一个自由出生的人’。我们今日仍坚守这一承诺。”
实时更新：最高法院将在本任期最后一天公布出生公民权、跨性别运动员相关裁决
2026年4月1日，华盛顿，在唐纳德·特朗普总统抵达美国最高法院前，持不同观点的示威者发生口角对峙。（汤姆·布伦纳/美联社照片）
最高法院以5票赞成、4票反对的结果维持了地区法院阻止特朗普行政令生效的裁决，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨与大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特加入了法院的三名自由派大法官阵营。法院裁定，个人的公民身份不取决于父母的身份，援引了第十四修正案。罗伯茨写道，法院1898年在“王金 Ark案”中的裁决已经解决了这一问题。
多数意见称，公民条款的通过是为了推翻最高法院的德雷德·斯科特案裁决，该案剥夺了非裔美国人的公民身份，并确保公民身份由美国国土上的出生地点决定。
尽管大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺也认为特朗普的行政令无法生效，但他与多数派基于不同的法律依据发表了协同意见。
卡瓦诺认为，特朗普的行政令违反了现行联邦法律，但他同时表示，宪法允许国会通过立法，限制父母非法或临时留在美国境内所生子女的出生公民权。
“国会可以——符合第十四修正案的规定——修改或制定新的法律，为外国公民非法或临时留在美国境内所生子女设立出生公民权例外条款。但国会尚未就此采取行动。”卡瓦诺裁定。
大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯与大法官尼尔·戈萨奇持不同意见，他们认为第十四修正案并未保障父母非法或临时留在美国境内所生子女拥有出生公民权。托马斯辩称，法院1898年在“王金 Ark案”中的裁决将出生公民权的范围扩大到了重建时期国会从未“设想”过的程度。
“‘王金 Ark案’仅涉及父母合法且永久定居美国的儿童的公民身份问题。”托马斯写道。
点击此处下载福克斯新闻APP
特朗普最初的行政令出台后，多起诉讼接踵而至。在最高法院限制全国禁令的使用范围后，美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）代表受该政策影响的家庭提起了全国性集体诉讼。这起诉讼由一名仅以“芭芭拉”为化名以保护身份的洪都拉斯女性牵头，指控该行政令违宪，并认为其违反了第十四修正案中关于出生公民权的保障条款。
本文为正在发展中的新闻事件。请随时返回查看最新进展。
伊莱恩·马伦是福克斯新闻数字频道和福克斯商业频道的撰稿人，报道全国政治新闻。
Trump suffers major Supreme Court defeat as justices uphold birthright citizenship
June 30, 2026 10:36am EDT / Fox News
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
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/635b1a91-6a74-460b-829a-57cb7e7ee328
Listen to this article
3 min
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.
The ruling is a major setback for Trump, who made curbing birthright citizenship a key part of his immigration agenda.
“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 Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause,” the court said.
“The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
LIVE UPDATES: SUPREME COURT TO UNVEIL BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, TRANSGENDDER ATHLETES DECISIONS ON TERM’S FINAL DAY
Demonstrators holding opposing views verbally engage ahead of President Donald Trump’s arrival at the U.S. Supreme Court, Wednesday, April 1, 2026, in Washington.(Tom Brenner/AP Photo)
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to affirm a district court ruling blocking Trump’s executive order, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the court’s three liberal justices. The court found that a person’s citizenship status is not dependent on their parents’, citing the 14th Amendment. Roberts wrote that the Court’s 1898 ruling in Wong Kim Ark had settled the issue.
The majority said the Citizenship Clause was adopted to reverse the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott ruling, which denied citizenship to Black Americans, and to ensure that citizenship is determined by birth on U.S. soil.
While Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that Trump’s executive order could not take effect, he reached that conclusion on different legal grounds than the majority in a concurring opinion.
Kavanaugh argued that Trump’s executive order violated current federal law; however, he said the Constitution would allow Congress to pass legislation restricting birthright citizenship for children born to parents who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily.
“Congress could—consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment — amend or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so,” Kavanaugh ruled.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented, arguing that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee birthright citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily. Thomas argued that the Court’s 1898 ruling in Wong Kim Ark expanded birthright citizenship beyond what the Reconstruction Congress had ever “contemplated.”
“Wong Kim Ark addressed only the citizenship of a child born to parents who were lawfully and permanently domiciled in the United States,” Thomas wrote.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Multiple lawsuits followed Trump’s initial executive order. After the Supreme Court curtailed the use of nationwide injunctions, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit on behalf of families affected by the policy. The suit, led by a Honduran woman identified only as “Barbara” to protect her identity, challenged the order as unconstitutional and argued that it violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Elaine Mallon is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business covering national politics.
