WASHINGTON (AP): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded its term Tuesday by issuing several landmark decisions affecting immigration, school athletics and federal campaign finance.

The Court rejected President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, upheld state laws limiting transgender participation in girls’ and women’s school sports, and struck down federal limits on coordinated campaign spending by political parties.

Birthright Citizenship

The Court ruled that children born in the United States remain U.S. citizens regardless of whether their parents are in the country illegally or are in the country on temporary visas, rejecting Trump’s executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship.

The justices relied on the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which provides that nearly everyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen. The ruling preserves decades of legal precedent, with limited exceptions such as children born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces.

Trump signed the executive order on his first day back in office as part of his administration’s broader immigration enforcement agenda. The policy had been blocked by multiple lower federal courts and never took effect.

The administration argued that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore are not entitled to automatic citizenship under the Constitution.

The Court left intact its long-standing interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, including the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for nearly all children born in the United States.

According to research from the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University’s Population Research Institute, more than 250,000 children born in the United States each year would have been affected by the executive order.

Transgender Athletes

In a separate decision, the Supreme Court upheld laws in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit transgender girls and women from competing on girls’ and women’s athletic teams in public schools and colleges.

The justices ruled the laws do not violate either the U.S. Constitution or Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education.

The decision is expected to reinforce similar laws already in place in more than two dozen states that limit participation in female sports based on biological sex.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said athletic competition involves limited roster spots and competitive opportunities.

“Sports are generally zero sum,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Every biological male who makes the team takes a roster spot from a female athlete. Every biological male who wins a race takes the gold medal away from a female athlete.”

The ruling does not resolve legal challenges involving policies in states such as Connecticut and California, where transgender athletes are permitted to compete based on their gender identity. Those cases remain pending in lower courts.

Campaign Finance

The Court also struck down federal limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president, overturning campaign finance restrictions that had been in place for more than 50 years.

The ruling eliminates limits on coordinated spending between political parties and federal candidates, finding the restrictions violate constitutional protections for political speech.

The case was brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, then-Ohio Senator JD Vance and former Congressman Steve Chabot.

The Federal Election Commission initially defended the law but later joined the plaintiffs in asking the Supreme Court to overturn the spending limits.

The restrictions had been enacted to prevent individuals from bypassing campaign contribution limits by routing money through political parties for the benefit of specific candidates. The Supreme Court had previously upheld the law in a 2001 decision.

During the 2024 election cycle, coordinated spending limits ranged from approximately $127,000 for Senate races in smaller states to nearly $4 million in California. House candidates were generally limited to about $63,600 in coordinated party spending, with higher limits in states that elect only one representative.

The ruling builds on the Court’s previous campaign finance decisions, including its 2010 Citizens United decision, and is expected to give national and state political parties greater flexibility to work directly with candidates during future federal election campaigns.

Tuesday’s rulings close out one of the Supreme Court’s most consequential terms in recent years, with decisions expected to shape federal policy, election law and constitutional issues for years to come.