Related videos:
The Cuban-American Republican Congresswoman María Elvira Salazar distanced herself on Tuesday from President Donald Trump's stance by publicly endorsing the Supreme Court ruling that maintains birthright citizenship for children of parents without legal status, a decision that represents a direct setback for the president's immigration agenda.
Salazar, representative of Florida's 27th Congressional District, issued an official statement endorsing the decision of the Supreme Court with a statement that stands in stark contrast to Trump's position: "The Constitution is clear, and we must always respect the rule of law."
Support for the ruling that Trump called a "shame."
The court rejected on Tuesday, by a vote of six to three, Trump's attempt to eliminate automatic citizenship through Executive Order 14,160, signed on January 20, 2025, the first day of his second term.
Trump had described birthright citizenship as "ridiculous" and stated that it would be a "shame" if the Court upheld it. After the defeat, he announced that he would seek to modify the decision in Congress.
Salazar was straightforward in her stance: "The Supreme Court has already ruled on birthright citizenship, and I support their decision."
Her backing puts her in conflict with the president of her own party, which takes on particular significance given the central role Trump played in this legal battle.
"Immigration policy should not be defined through executive orders."
Beyond endorsing the ruling, Salazar issued an implicit critique of the method that Trump has used to reform immigration policy.
"The Court interpreted the Constitution, but immigration policy should not be defined by executive orders or judicial decisions. That only creates uncertainty and harms our families, our employers, and our communities," wrote the congresswoman.
And she was even more direct in pointing out where the debate should take place: “It is the responsibility of Congress to fix our immigration system. That is where this debate should have always taken place.”
Defend the Constitution without ignoring abuses
Salazar acknowledged that the ruling does not resolve all the issues of the immigration system, but he rejected the notion that this justifies ignoring the Constitution.
“This ruling does not change another reality: our immigration laws are outdated and do not respond to today’s challenges,” he warned.
At the same time, he proposed that both objectives are compatible:
"We can defend the Constitution while also putting an end to abuses like birth tourism, combating fraud, and fixing a legal immigration system that has failed the United States for too long. These goals are not in conflict; they go hand in hand."
A Republican voice that isn't afraid to contradict Trump
Salazar's positioning is not an isolated incident. The congresswoman, daughter of Cuban immigrants who fled the Castro regime, has a history of distancing herself from the hardline stance of her party on immigration issues.
She is the author of the Dignity Law, a bipartisan proposal aimed at regularizing over 11 million undocumented immigrants with no criminal records who have resided in the country for more than five years.
In December 2025, Salazar criticized the suspension of immigration applications from Cuba, Haiti, and Venezuela, calling it "anti-American" and "collective punishment," while her Republican colleagues Mario Díaz-Balart and Carlos Giménez supported the measure.
The ruling that defeated Trump
Executive Order 14,160 instructed federal agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born if neither of their parents was a citizen or permanent resident. Federal Judge John Coughenour immediately blocked it, labeling it as "blatantly unconstitutional," and attorneys general from 18 states filed lawsuits.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, authored the majority opinion stating that "citizenship, both then and now, was the right to have rights" and that the drafters of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to "everyone born free in this land."
This ruling represents the third significant defeat for Trump in the Supreme Court in recent months. The Migration Policy Institute had estimated that around 255,000 children born each year to non-citizen parents would have lost that right had the executive order been enforced.
Filed under: