Supreme Court Hears Trump Birthright Citizenship Case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a case concerning President Trump’s attempt to revise the Constitution and end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country.

The History of Birthright Citizenship

For 160 years, the United States has adhered to the principle that individuals born within its borders are citizens. This understanding is rooted in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and federal immigration law. Trump’s proposal originated in an executive order, which has been blocked by courts nationwide and has never taken effect.

Trump's Legal Argument

Trump’s lawyers argue they are seeking to correct what they believe is a long-standing misinterpretation of the Constitution’s citizenship clause, which states that “all persons born” in the U.S. are citizens. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in his appeal that the executive order would “restore the original meaning of the citizenship clause” and deny citizenship, on a prospective basis, to children of “temporarily present aliens and illegal aliens.”

Presidential Power and Congressional Authority

A key question before the court is the extent of the president’s power in this matter. The court recently blocked Trump’s attempt to impose sweeping tariffs, asserting that the Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the power to regulate import taxes. The president’s authority over citizenship rules is considered even more limited.

The Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Following the Civil War, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, declaring “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power” to be citizens. This principle was then enshrined in the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment and Past Rulings

The opening line of the 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.” In 1898, the Supreme Court upheld this rule in Wong Kim Ark, affirming the citizenship of a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents. The court stated the 14th Amendment “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory.”

In 1952, Congress reaffirmed this provision when revising immigration laws, adding the same language without controversy. The law established rules for disputes involving American parents living abroad, but the initial rule remained clear: a person born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.

Potential Consequences and Current Debates

Critics argue that Trump’s plan would replace a clear rule with a complex one, requiring states to investigate the legal status of parents to determine a newborn’s citizenship. Currently, a birth certificate is generally sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship.

Recently, Trump urged Senate Republicans to pass an election law requiring proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, for voter registration. However, his lawyers are now asking the court to rule that birth in the U.S. is not, in itself, proof of citizenship, creating what Eliza Sweren-Becker of the Brennan Center calls a “logical inconsistency.”

The “Subject to Jurisdiction” Clause

The central legal dispute revolves around the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.” Traditionally, this has been understood to mean individuals within the U.S. are subject to its laws, excluding foreign diplomats and, historically, Native Americans on tribal reservations. However, Sauer argues it should exclude newborns whose parents are unlawfully in the country, as they are not “completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) calls this a “radical rewriting” of the 14th Amendment, which makes no mention of parental status. They warn that upholding the order could affect “tens of thousands of children born every month” and “cast a shadow over the citizenship of millions upon millions of Americans.”

Possible Outcomes

Some legal experts predict the court may rule narrowly, rejecting Trump’s executive order due to its conflict with existing federal immigration laws. While a defeat for Trump, such a ruling would leave the door open for Congress to potentially enact new provisions, including limitations on expectant mothers entering the country to give birth.