Birthright Citizenship Ruling: What HR Needs to Know Now

In Trump v. Barbara, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Administration’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship by executive action and left intact the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that children born in the United States are U.S. citizens at birth, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

Although the birthright citizenship ruling removes one source of uncertainty, employers are still facing a busy second half of the year, with major developments expected on H-1B costs, prevailing wage requirements, and the rules affecting international students and other nonimmigrant workers.

What the Supreme Court Decided

The Court’s decision reaffirmed the constitutional principle that individuals born in the United States are citizens from birth, subject to a narrow and historically recognized exception for children born to foreign diplomats. The ruling rejected the federal government’s effort to narrow that rule through an executive order.

From a practical standpoint, the ruling does not change an employer’s existing operations. The ruling also reinforces a practical boundary: Sweeping changes to U.S. citizenship cannot be made through unilateral executive action. Immigration policy may change through regulation, agency action, litigation, or legislation, but employers should be cautious about reacting to proposals before they become legally effective.

What’s Next: H-1B Fees, Wages and Student Pipelines

While the birthright citizenship ruling provides clarity, several other immigration developments could directly affect hiring budgets, workforce planning and talent pipelines for employers.

One closely watched issue is the $100,000 supplemental fee for certain new H-1B petitions. In December 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the fee. In June 2026, however, a federal district court in Massachusetts vacated the fee, holding that it functioned as an unlawful tax and exceeded the president’s statutory authority. These conflicting rulings create a landscape ripe for clarification at the appellate level.

For employers, the practical point is that the fee remains unsettled. HR teams should monitor the litigation closely, avoid assuming the fee is either fully reinstated or fully suspended, and consult immigration counsel before moving forward with H-1B filings.

The Department of Labor’s proposed prevailing wage rule could also have significant consequences for employers. Prevailing wage levels are central to many employment-based immigration filings, including H-1B, H-1B1, E-3, and PERM labor certification cases. The public comment period closed in May 2026, and the final rule has not yet been issued. The rule may be modified in response to comments and could face legal challenges once finalized. If adopted in its current form, the rule would significantly increase employers’ wage obligations, resulting in higher sponsorship costs and more difficult compensation alignment, particularly for positions at entry-level or mid-level salary bands.

DHS’s move to end “duration of status” for certain visa categories may also impact the future workforce pipeline. Currently, F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors may remain in the United States for the duration of their programs, rather than being admitted until a fixed calendar date. Moving to fixed admission periods could create additional filing deadlines, increase the need for extension requests, and raise the risk of gaps or inadvertent status violations. For employers, the impact would likely be felt most acutely in campus recruiting and early-career hiring.

What the Birthright Citizenship Ruling Means for HR

The birthright citizenship ruling does not require any action from employers, but it is a reminder that immigration developments can affect employees well beyond the visa process. HR teams should continue to monitor potential changes to H-1B fees, prevailing wage requirements and student visa rules.

Employers should avoid making operational changes based on headlines alone. The more reliable course is to maintain compliant processes and carefully evaluate current legal requirements before making any changes to company policies.

Steve Smalley, business immigration shareholder in Raleigh and Boston at Ogletree Deakins, and Jennifer Cofer, business immigration associate in Raleigh at Ogletree Deakins, also contributed to this article.