Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Fourteenth Amendment enshrined citizenship as a fundamental constitutional right.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community,” Roberts wrote, adding that the amendment extended that guarantee to “every free-born person in this land.”
Three conservative justices dissented, arguing that Trump’s executive order should have been allowed to take effect. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a lengthy dissent, said the court had wrongly interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment beyond its original purpose, which he argued was to secure equal rights for formerly enslaved Black Americans.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority in rejecting Trump’s order but based his decision on existing federal statute rather than the Constitution. He agreed with the dissenters that the executive order did not violate the Constitution itself, indicating that Congress could amend federal law in the future to alter birthright citizenship rules.

Trump’s executive order, signed on the first day of his second presidential term, was a central element of his administration’s broader immigration agenda. The policy had been blocked by several lower federal courts and never took effect anywhere in the United States while legal challenges proceeded.

The case reached the Supreme Court after the administration appealed a ruling by a federal court in New Hampshire that declared the order unlawful.
The administration argued that children born to parents who were in the United States unlawfully or temporarily were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore were not automatically entitled to citizenship.

The majority rejected that interpretation, relying on the amendment’s text, its historical context and the Supreme Court’s landmark 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which established that children born in the United States to foreign nationals are citizens by birth.

Legal experts estimate that more than 250,000 children born annually in the United States would have been affected by the executive order. The proposed restrictions would have applied not only to undocumented immigrants but also to individuals legally residing in the country on temporary visas, including students and applicants for permanent residency.

The ruling marks one of the most significant judicial setbacks for Trump’s immigration agenda during his second term and reaffirms more than a century of constitutional precedent governing citizenship by birth.

The judgment, issued on Wednesday, removes a policy that had barred ICRC access to Palestinian detainees for more than two years. The restriction was introduced after Israel accused the humanitarian organization of failing to secure access to hostages held in Gaza by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups following the attack.

The court found that the government had not adequately justified maintaining a blanket prohibition on prison visits, opening the way for the potential resumption of ICRC monitoring activities inside Israeli detention facilities.

The ICRC welcomed the ruling and said it was prepared to restart visits immediately. In a statement issued Wednesday evening, the organization said it was continuing discussions with Israeli authorities to resume detention-related operations as soon as possible.

The agency reiterated that access to detainees, including the ability to conduct private interviews, is an obligation under international humanitarian law.
Israel suspended ICRC visits to security-related prisoners shortly after the October 2023 attack, arguing that the organization had been unable to gain access to Israeli hostages held in Gaza.

The restrictions remained in force even after the return of the last hostages in October 2025.
The ruling comes amid sustained scrutiny of detention conditions in Israeli prisons. Human rights organizations, including several Israeli groups, have reported worsening conditions for Palestinian detainees, citing allegations of mistreatment, inadequate medical care and violence inside detention facilities.

The Prisoners Club, a leading Palestinian prisoners’ rights organization, said the court’s decision would have limited practical impact unless visits resume promptly. The group’s head, Abdullah Al-Zaghari, argued that the judgment should not obscure broader concerns regarding the role of Israeli judicial institutions in policies affecting Palestinian detainees.

The decision marks a significant legal setback for the government’s detention policy and could increase pressure on authorities to restore independent humanitarian monitoring of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli custody.

Akram, 24, is charged with opening fire at a Jewish Hanukkah gathering at Bondi Beach in December, killing 15 people in what police have described as one of the country’s worst mass shootings and an attack inspired by Islamic State.

The accused had sought a 40-year suppression order to block publication of the names, images and identifying details of his mother, brother and sister, arguing that publicity could endanger their safety.

Several Australian media organizations opposed the application, saying it would unduly restrict reporting in a case of significant public interest.Judge Hugh Donnelly ruled against the request, stating that suppression orders should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and that transparency in judicial proceedings was fundamental.

He noted the case had generated “unprecedented public interest, anger, outrage and grief.”The court heard that personal details of Akram’s family had already circulated widely online, while his mother had spoken to local media shortly after the attack.

Donnelly added that any order limited to Australian jurisdiction would be ineffective given the reach of social media and international publications.Akram appeared via video link from a maximum-security prison and did not contest the ruling further.

His lawyer, Richard Wilson, told the court there were no plans to appeal the decision.The December attack shocked Australia, a country with strict gun control laws, and has prompted renewed debate over firearm regulation and rising antisemitism.

The government has since launched a national inquiry into antisemitism and social cohesion, with findings expected later this year, alongside measures to strengthen hate speech legislation.