The US Supreme Court has rejected President Donald Trump's attempt to restrict birthright citizenship for children of migrants in the United States in a crushing defeat for the White House.
Judges ruled 6-3 against the Republican President in yet another blow to Mr Trump's controversial immigration reforms.
Challengers to President Trump's order argued that it violates language in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment that confers citizenship to those born in the United States who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
President Trump issued the order last year on his first day back in office as part of a suite of policies to crack down on legal and illegal immigration.
However, critics have accused the Republican president of racial and religious discrimination in his approach to immigration.
The challengers said the Supreme Court already had settled the question of birthright citizenship in an 1898 case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
The case recognised the 14th Amendment grants citizenship by birth on US soil, including to the children of foreign nationals.
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored Tuesday's ruling, pointed to that 1898 ruling.
Justice Roberts wrote: "Not surprisingly, then, in the 128 years since, we have repeatedly understood the rule of Wong Kim Ark to guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its power. We see no reason to depart from that view today."
He said there was "scant evidence" to support the Trump administration's "dramatically revisionist view" of how to interpret the citizenship language of the 14th Amendment to limit birthright citizenship.
He said: "If Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design."
Ahead of the ruling, some experts had estimated that President Trump's order could impact the legal status of as many as 250,000 babies born each year and could require the families of millions more to prove the citizenship status of their newborns.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
- 'Very disappointing!' GB News star hits back at Keir Starmer snub as PM dodges grilling on £15bn defence plan
- Andy Burnham rejects invitation to America's 250th birthday bonanza in London after Donald Trump smackdown
- 'Unforgivable!' Armed Forces left underfunded by billions in Keir Starmer's parting gift as PM
The legal challenge to President Trump's directive considered by the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, involved a class-action lawsuit filed in New Hampshire by parents and children whose citizenship was threatened by the directive.
The 14th Amendment has long been interpreted as guaranteeing citizenship for babies born in the United States, with only narrow exceptions such as the children of foreign diplomats or members of an enemy occupying force.
The provision at issue, known as the Citizenship Clause, states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
However, President Trump's administration has asserted that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that being born in the United States is not enough for citizenship.
Therefore, according to the administration, this would in theory exclude the babies of immigrants who are in the country illegally or whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas.
Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter
