The question of “Who gets to be an American?” has been central to national debate, particularly concerning immigration policies. The Supreme Court recently considered the legality of a Trump-era executive order challenging birthright citizenship, a debate rooted in historical precedent.

A Historical Precedent: Wong Kim Ark and the 14th Amendment

Historians often analyze how specific events shape history. A pivotal moment occurred in 1898 with the Supreme Court’s 6–2 ruling in Wong Kim Ark v. United States. The court affirmed that Wong Kim Ark, a cook born in San Francisco, was a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause.

The Impact of the Ruling

This decision, stating that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” has granted citizenship to tens of millions of people. The ruling also allowed Wong Kim Ark to bring his three sons, born in China, to the U.S. as American citizens.

A Descendant's Story: Norman Wong and the Fight for Birthright Citizenship

Norman Wong, the grandson of Wong Kim Ark, recently addressed the Supreme Court as justices debated the constitutionality of the Trump administration’s attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship. For much of his life, Norman was unaware of his family’s historical significance.

He learned of his grandfather’s case in the late 1990s, and he and his sister, Sandra, realized the importance of their family’s story. In January 2023, the Trump Administration issued an executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship to children with at least one citizen or lawful permanent resident parent.

From Carpentry to Activism

Norman Wong, a 76-year-old former carpenter from the Bay Area, has become an advocate for preserving birthright citizenship. He has delivered speeches and given media interviews, emphasizing the importance of upholding the legal foundation of citizenship. He described his grandfather as an “ordinary person who decided to take a stand,” stating, “Except that he was not willing to have his citizenship taken away.”

Related Cases: SCOTUS Ruling on Conversion Therapy

In a separate ruling, the Supreme Court also struck down a Colorado state law banning conversion therapy in an 8–1 decision on Trans Day of Visibility. Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that the First Amendment should not protect practices that harm public health.

Kaley Chiles, the therapist who challenged the ban, framed gender-affirming care as “state-approved goals.” The ruling has raised concerns about the rights and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals, with advocates highlighting the potential for increased discrimination and harm.