City Attorney issues statement after SCOTUS upholds birthright citizenship

San Francisco, CA (June 30, 2026) — San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu issued a statement today after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Barbara to uphold birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship is the longstanding legal principle that people born in the United States are citizens. This foundational right was enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment and affirmed in an 1898 Supreme Court case brought by Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese American born in San Francisco.

“Birthright citizenship is as clear cut as legal principles come, and its story is deeply rooted in San Francisco’s history,” said San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, the first Asian American in his post. “The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional guarantee 128 years ago in a case brought by Wong Kim Ark, a San Franciscan born to immigrant parents. The Court affirmed that same right today. As a birthright citizen, I know my place in this country is possible because of the courage of Wong Kim Ark and immigrants like my parents, who dared to dream of a better life for their children. I am proud to carry on that fight to ensure future generations continue to benefit from their birthright.”

The Supreme Court’s decision underscored the promise of citizenship to every person born in the United States, stating: “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ … We keep that promise today.”

Press Conference Tomorrow
City Attorney Chiu, Asian Law Caucus, and community leaders will host a press conference to provide interviews and discuss the ruling tomorrow, July 1 at 11:00am PST at Willie Woo Woo Wong Playground Park in San Francisco.

Case Background
President Trump issued an Executive Order on January 20, 2025, to end birthright citizenship, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Section 1401 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and over a century of legal precedent.

The Executive Order would have, for the first time since the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, denied citizenship to thousands of babies born in the United States who would otherwise be citizens. The President’s Order would strip these children of the essential rights and benefits of citizenship while also imposing significant financial and administrative burdens on state and local governments.

To stop the President’s unlawful action, San Francisco and a coalition of states sued the Federal Administration in the District of Massachusetts to block the Executive Order and prevent any actions to implement it. In that case, New Jersey v. Trump, the jurisdictions requested immediate relief to prevent the President’s Order from taking effect. In February 2025, a federal district court judge granted Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction order, preventing the birthright citizenship Executive Order from taking effect nationwide.

The Federal Administration filed an emergency petition in that case asking the U.S. Supreme Court decide the separate procedural issue of whether federal district court judges can issue universal injunctions to prohibit or require behavior nationwide. The U.S. Supreme Court consolidated three cases and then ruled in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal district court judges cannot issue nationwide preliminary injunction orders unless necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ordered the District Court to reconsider the need for a nationwide injunction in the birthright citizenship case. The District Court affirmed that a nationwide injunction was necessary, which the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals later agreed with, recognizing the issue was not a difficult one, “which may explain why it has been more than a century since a branch of our government has made as concerted an effort as the Executive Branch now makes to deny Americans their birthright.”

In June 2025, after CASA, the Asian Law Caucus and a coalition of civil right organizations representing a nationwide class of children born on U.S. soil filed a separate lawsuit challenging the President’s illegal Executive Order on birthright citizenship. In April 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in that case, Trump v. Barbara, to determine whether the President’s Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment. San Francisco joined a coalition of states in filing an amicus brief in support of the nationwide class. Today, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold birthright citizenship.

The U.S. Supreme Court case is Trump v. Barbara, Case No. 25-365. View the Court’s decision.

Birthright Citizenship
Birthright citizenship in the United States dates back centuries. Although the Supreme Court’s notorious decision in Dred Scott denied birthright citizenship to the descendants of slaves, the post-Civil War United States adopted the Fourteenth Amendment to protect citizenship for all children born in this country.

In 1895, Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese American born in San Francisco on Sacramento Street to immigrant parents, was traveling back from China to his home in San Francisco. Officials at the Port of San Francisco denied him re-entry to the United States on the grounds that he was not a citizen and subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prevented Chinese nationals from entering the Unites States. With the support of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, Wong Kim Ark challenged this decision. In 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-2 in favor of Wong Kim Ark, finding that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically made him a U.S. citizen and the government could not deny him entry into his home country.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed, as it did again today, that babies born in the United States are citizens and birthright citizenship does not depend on the immigration status of the baby’s parents.