ARTICLE
22 July 2026

Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship: What The Decision Means For Medicaid And Newborn Coverage

SM
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Contributor

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more than 1,200 lawyers located in 16 offices worldwide, our client-centered approach is grounded in nearly a century of building enduring relationships on trust and collaboration. Our broad and diversified practices serve global clients—from startups to Fortune 500 companies—at every stage of the business cycle, including high-stakes litigation, complex transactions, sophisticated financings and regulatory issues. With leading edge technologies and innovation behind our team, we pride ourselves on being a strategic partner to our clients.
The Supreme Court's ruling on Executive Order 14160 has significant implications for Medicaid coverage of newborns, particularly the "deemed newborn" rule that automatically enrolls infants born to Medicaid-enrolled mothers. While the decision provides near-term clarity, the broader intersection of immigration policy and healthcare access continues to evolve through legislative and administrative actions that could reshape coverage for vulnerable populations.
United States Government, Public Sector
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP are most popular:
  • within Cannabis & Hemp and Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring topic(s)

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States in Trump v. Barbara1 ruled on the constitutionality of President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” (“EO 14160”), which had directed federal agencies to limit recognition of citizenship at birth in certain cases where a child’s parents lack permanent legal status. In its ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s preliminary injunction against EO 14160, leaving the order enjoined and unenforceable. The decision leaves intact the longstanding interpretation that, subject to narrow, longstanding exceptions (e.g., children of accredited foreign diplomats), children born in the United States are citizens at birth regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

In reaching that decision, five Justices concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, while Justice Kavanaugh provided the sixth vote on statutory rather than constitutional grounds. Although Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the Court’s judgment, he did not join the majority’s conclusion that EO 14160 violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, he reasoned that EO 14160 was invalid on statutory grounds because it conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provisions governing citizenship at birth.2 Justice Kavanaugh also indicated that, in his view, if Congress amends the Immigration and Nationality Act or enacts a new statute creating new exceptions along the lines of EO 14160 for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country, such a statute “would pass constitutional muster.” Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence leaves open the possibility that Congress could pursue similar policy objectives through legislation. Because five Justices grounded the ruling in the Fourteenth Amendment, however, any statute adopting EO 14160‑like exceptions would likely still confront a constitutional challenge under the majority’s reasoning.

Medicaid and Newborn Eligibility

The Supreme Court’s decision has important implications for the Medicaid program. Medicaid finances approximately 41% of all births in the U.S.3, making any potential changes affecting birthright citizenship particularly relevant for maternal and infant health coverage.

As discussed in our blog post last year, since 1984, federal law4 has guaranteed that infants born to mothers enrolled in Medicaid at delivery are automatically eligible for Medicaid coverage through their first year of life. The “deemed newborn” rule does not require a separate Medicaid eligibility determination for a newborn at enrollment; instead, eligibility is based on the mother’s Medicaid enrollment status at the time of delivery and generally continues through the first year of life. Had EO 14160 taken effect, state Medicaid agencies might have needed to reassess Medicaid eligibility workflows, documentation requirements for determining parental immigration status, and enrollment systems to reflect changes in the legal framework governing citizenship at birth.

Looking Ahead

Although EO 14160 has been invalidated, the broader policy debate over the relationship between immigration status and access to healthcare is likely to continue. Future policy changes addressing immigration status and healthcare eligibility could arise through legislative, regulatory, or administrative mechanisms.

For example, in 2025 the Department of Homeland Security rescinded guidance5 limiting immigration enforcement actions in certain sensitive locations, including hospitals.6 In addition, beginning October 1, 2026, Section 71109 of the Working Families Tax Cut legislation7 will restrict[8] federal Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) matching funds for certain categories of noncitizens who previously qualified for federally matched coverage. States that choose to continue coverage for affected populations without federal matching funds may need to assume a greater share of the costs. These changes could place additional fiscal and administrative pressure on states that have expanded healthcare coverage for certain noncitizen populations, particularly pregnant women and children.

Although President Trump has indicated that he intends to seek a rehearing of the decision, the Supreme Court’s ruling provides near-term clarity regarding Medicaid’s “deemed newborn” rule and related newborn coverage processes. The broader landscape, however, remains unsettled, as the intersection of immigration policy and healthcare access continues to evolve through legislative, regulatory, and administrative actions.

Footnotes

1. Trump v. Barbara, 609 U.S. _ (2026).

2. 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1401&num=0&edition=prelim.

3. See Medicaid.gov, Maternal & Infant Health Care Qualityhttps://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/quality-of-care/quality-improvement/maternal-infant-health-care-quality#:~:text=Related%20Resources&text=More%20than%20one%20out%20of,births%20in%20the%20United%20States.

4. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(e)(4), https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:42%20section:1396a%20edition:prelim).

5. See Department of Homeland Security, Statement from a DHS Spokesperson on Directives Expanding Law Enforcement and Ending the Abuse of Humanitarian Parole (January 21, 2025), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/01/21/statement-dhs-spokesperson-directives-expanding-law-enforcement-and-ending-abuse.

6. See U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Common Sense Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas Memorandum (January 31, 2025),ice-memo-common-sense-enforcement-actions-in-or-near-protected-areas.pdf.

7. See H.R. Con. Res. 14, 119th Cong. (2025) (enacted), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text.

8. See Department of Health & Human Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Letter SHO #26-001 Re: Implementation of Section 71109 “Alien Medicaid Eligibility” of the Working Families Tax Cut Legislation (Public Law 119-21) (April 8, 2026), https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/sho26001.pdf.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More