Preface. Don't read this. Go to the oral argument transcripts and follow along as you listen to the arguments. Then read a couple of the amici briefs (they are short and pithy.) I've tried to summarize from my POV, but better to make up your own mind, and be informed. Transcript of oral arguments in Barbara v Trump. You can listen to the actual arguments (riveting - no joke) here.
I have always been fascinated by the 14th Amendment and its primary author John Bingham. It made the Constitution better and was intended to solidify the rights and privileges of former slaves, making them all citizens of both federal and state.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It's beautiful in its simplicity. Trump is trying to dismantle it not just by taking citizenship away from those whose parents might not be citizens, but also by denying due process and equal protection to those who might claim it. Trump is not alone as FDR and the Supreme Court denied due process and equal protection to Japanese Americans (not German Americans, it should be noted) [1]
Fortunately, the courts have pushed back. What also makes this case interesting is the government is asking for a living constitutionalist interpretation, i.e. times have changed, we need to ignore original intent and make new law irrespective of the 14th Amendment and the 1952 reaffirmation of that amendment through statute. Roberts had the best comback. Saur said, it's a new world, to which Roberts replied, "a new world; not a new Constitution."[2]
It was still necessary for the Amendment to be enforced and that was accomplished in 1898. The landmark Supreme Court case that established the precedent for birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment is United States v. Wong Kim Ark .
In a 6-2 decision, the Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to parents of Chinese descent, was a U.S. citizen by birth under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.This decision affirmed the principle of jus soli (right of the soil), confirming that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly all individuals born within the United States, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status.
The current case at the center of the birthright citizenship debate is Trump v Barbara which addresses an executive order issued by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, aimed at ending automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for this case today, April 1, 2026, an event made particularly historic by the President’s personal attendance in the courtroom. At the heart of the legal battle is the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause and whether the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" permits the government to exclude children based on their parents' legal status. While the administration seeks to narrow the definition of birthright citizenship, challengers maintain that the 1898 precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark clearly guarantees citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil. Lower courts have already blocked the order, and a final decision from the Supreme Court is anticipated by early summer 2026, with early reports from today's session suggesting several justices expressed skepticism toward the administration’s arguments.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, argued that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" requires parents to be "domiciled" in the United States—meaning they must have established a permanent home here—to confer citizenship on their children.He contended that the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision supports this focus on domicile, a point he used to suggest that the modern interpretation of birthright citizenship has become overly broad.
The justices, including those appointed by President Trump, expressed deep skepticism toward the administration’s position.Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan both questioned why the government would rely on what Kagan described as "pretty obscure sources" to redefine a constitutional provision that has been interpreted consistently for over a century.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned the practical implementation of the order, asking how the government would feasibly determine the citizenship status of a newborn.Justice Amy Coney Barrett similarly challenged the solicitor general, noting that the administration's argument lacked a strong textual basis in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Conversely, the justices also scrutinized the arguments presented by Cecillia Wang, the ACLU legal director representing the plaintiffs.Several justices, including Justice Samuel Alito, questioned how the plaintiffs could dismiss the concept of "domicile" as irrelevant given its frequent mention in the Wong Kim Ark opinion.Wang maintained that the Fourteenth Amendment established a "bright line" rule that has long ensured stability, arguing that adopting the administration’s theory would invite government manipulation and place the citizenship of millions of Americans in jeopardy.President Trump attended the session as a silent observer for over an hour, leaving shortly after the government’s opening defense concluded, while the court is expected to deliver its final ruling by late June or early July 2026.
I just love reading opinions and especially glancing through the amici briefs. (These are literally "friends" briefs from organizations or even individuals who are not party to the suit, but have a strong interest in the issues raised and the outcome. There were several I found to be quite interesting. The Cato Institute, a libertarian group was against any reinterpretation of the birthright clause [3] as was a faith-based group [4]. Two originalist scholars from NIU made the argument for not reinterpretating the 14th [5] but there was the usual, how can I put it, anti-Christian rhetoric from a Christian Nationalist group that foresaw a spate of horribles should Trump be denied his interpretation. [6]
The America First Foundation [7] was similarly concerned that children of immigrants would not have the appropriate "allegiance" to the United States.This amicus brief argues that the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause requires two conditions for birthright citizenship — not just birth on U.S. soil (residence), but also allegiance to the United States. Drawing heavily on English common law, particularly Calvin's Case (1608) and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the brief contends that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was always understood to encode an allegiance requirement, not merely regulatory jurisdiction. It argues that children of illegal aliens cannot satisfy this allegiance condition because their parents, by virtue of having broken U.S. immigration law, are in a state of ongoing defiance — essentially "alien enemies" rather than "alien friends" under common law — and cannot pass along to their children an allegiance they themselves do not possess. The brief further argues that since illegal immigration as a concept did not exist when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the drafters never contemplated extending birthright citizenship to this category of persons, and the Court should therefore not presume it was intended. Citing the Wong Kim Ark decision seemed a bit strange to me, as did their inclusion of "children of Native Americans " with the non-allegiance cohort. I wonder if they considered the natural outcome of the allegiance requirement, which is what do you do with people who have dual citizenship and how do you measure allegiance?
Equally enthusiastic to the Trump interpretation was the Family Coalition Florida that focused on those dangerous immigrants who would breed like rabbits and overrun us good white folk. Well, that's my translation of " that is precisely what the Constitution would become if en masse births by illegal aliens and transients in the United States were to trigger citizenship without restraint, limit, or regulation. Such unrestrained birthright citizenship is a Trojan Horse of religious intolerance – a runaway security nightmare which undermines Congressional control of immigration with a limitless and unrestrained influx of cultures alien to basic principles of free speech and religious tolerance and openly hostile to the United States.[6] Goodness.
The amicus brief submitted by originalist scholars Evan D. Bernick and Jed H. Shugerman at NIU argues that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was originally understood to guarantee citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, including those of transient or undocumented parents. The authors assert that the term "jurisdiction" at the time of ratification referred simply to the power to govern; therefore, anyone present in the country and subject to its laws falls under U.S. jurisdiction. Indians were excluded as not being within the jurisdiction of the United States. They were not to achieve citizenship until 1924. [see 8] They contend that the Trump administration’s 2025 executive order relies on "post-hoc" evidence and private correspondence that does not reflect the public meaning of the Constitution as it was understood in 1868.
The brief further supports this "bright-line" rule by tracing birthright citizenship back to English common law, specifically Calvin’s Case, which established that children of aliens born within the sovereign's dominion were natural-born subjects. The scholars point out that during the 1866 debates, members of Congress explicitly confirmed that the children of "temporary sojourners" and groups like the Roma and Chinese immigrants would be considered citizens. Finally, they warn that the government's current interpretation—requiring parental domicile—would contradict the Amendment's core purpose of repudiating the Dred Scott decision and could retroactively cast doubt on the citizenship of descendants of enslaved people who were brought to the country after the federal ban on the slave trade.
Amada Taylor pointed out that the questions coming from Justice Barrett were intriguing and useful because of her civil procedure background The administration's argument about the importance of domicile would lead to very tricky legal disputes over just what constitutes a "domicile". She thought that Alito might be more sympathetic to the originalist position because his parents were immigrants and if Trump's position were to prevail and be applied retroactively, he could possibly lose his citizenship. That was why the question about whether the administration was applying their interpretation prospectively or retrospectively was really important. Of course, if Trump prevailed there is nothing to stop him or a future president from applying it retrospectively which would lead to chaos.
To make things even more interesting, the justices will convene to a room with a portrait of Justice Harlan, the Great Dissenter, famously so named for his great dissent in Plessy v Ferguson, but who also dissented in Wong Kim Ark, a dissent he later thought better of in a speech, admitting he was wrong. [9]
Citations
[1] In Korematsu v. United States (1944), the Supreme Court faced the collision of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066—which authorized the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II—and the constitutional guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. Despite the Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits state-sanctioned discrimination, the Court’s 6-3 majority deferred to the government’s claim of "military necessity," ruling that while racial classifications are inherently suspect and subject to the most rigid scrutiny, they could be upheld during extreme wartime exigencies. Trump has used a similar "wartime" argument. This decision, which justified the forced removal of citizens based solely on their ancestry, remained a stain on American jurisprudence for decades until it was finally and explicitly repudiated by the Supreme Court in 2018, confirming that the ruling was gravely wrong and holds no place in modern constitutional law.
[2] Enacted as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1401 is the federal statute that defines who is automatically a citizen of the United States at birth. Its most fundamental provision declares that any person born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen from birth — essentially codifying the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause into statutory law. Beyond that, the statute extends birthright citizenship to several other categories: children born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents (where at least one parent has resided in the U.S.), children born abroad to one citizen parent and one non-citizen parent (where the citizen parent meets certain physical presence requirements), children born in U.S. territories and outlying possessions, members of Native American and aboriginal tribes born in the U.S., and children of certain U.S. nationals. Notably, the statute does not use the words "mother," "father," "parent," or "domicile" in its core birthright provision — a fact central to current legal debates — and its language has been understood since its enactment to confer citizenship based on the place of birth, not the immigration status of the parents. Note that Native Americans were not granted citizenship until 1924 when President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924, signed the Snyder Act into law This act declared all non-citizen Native Americans born within the territorial limits of the United States to be U.S. citizens. Regarding Native Americans and "Subject to the Jurisdiction of" https://nyulawreview.org/online-features/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-thereof-the-indian-law-context/#:~:text=But%20the%20%E2%80%9Canomalous%E2%80%9D%20and%20%E2%80%9C,foreign%20sovereignty%20and%20territory%20outside
[3]Cato Institute: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/399364/20260226123726552_Trump%20v.%20Barbara_Final.pdf
[4]Faith-Based Organizations: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/399431/20260226163518514_25-365%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
[5]Originalist Scholars: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/399436/20260226164037333_Bernick-Shugerman%20Amici%20FINAL%20PDFA.pdf
[6] Family Coalition Florida: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/392815/20260127152304521_25-365%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
[7] America First Foundation:https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/392775/20260127103719332_25-365%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
[8] Exclusion was rooted in a 19th-century legal theory that viewed Native American tribes as "quasi-foreign nations." When the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted in 1866, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to mean a "full and complete" allegiance to the United States. This was the hook that the Faith-based group hung their argument on. Key architects of the amendment, such as Senator Jacob Howard, argued that because Native Americans owed their primary political allegiance to their tribes, they were not fully under U.S. jurisdiction in the way the amendment required.
This theory was formally upheld in the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, where the Supreme Court ruled that a Native American born into a tribe was not a U.S. citizen at birth.The Court reasoned that tribes were "distinct political communities" and that tribal members were essentially born as subjects of an alien power, much like the children of foreign diplomats. As a result, even if an individual like John Elk voluntarily separated from his tribe and moved to a U.S. city, he did not automatically become a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. This jurisdictional barrier remained in place until Congress exercised its authority to grant broad citizenship via the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Earl M. Maltz, The Fourteenth Amendment and Native American Citizenship, 17 CONST. COMMENT. 555 (2000). Available at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/289
[9] "Suppose an English father and mother went down to Hot Springs to get rid of the gout, or rheumatism, and while he is there, there is a child born. Now, he goes back to England. Is that child a citizen of the United States... by the mere accident of his birth? My belief was never intended to embrace everybody... but of course, I am wrong because only the Chief Justice and myself held these views, and as the majority decided the other way, we must believe that we were wrong." Justice Harlan's recanting (?) his dissent.
Other Resources of Interest
UC Davis Letters & Science Magazine — "A Brief History of Citizenship in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" https://lettersandsciencemag.ucdavis.edu/self-society/brief-history-citizenship-14th-amendment-us-constitution
SCOTUSblog — "Birthright citizenship: why the text, history, and structure of a landmark 1952 statute doom Trump's executive order" https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/birthright-citizenship-why-the-text-history-and-structure-of-a-landmark-1952-statute-doom-trumps-executive-order-14160/
Akhil and Vikram Amar & Jason Mazzone, Birthright citizenship: why the text, history, and structure of a landmark 1952 statute doom Trump’s executive order, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 19, 2026, 3:10 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/birthright-citizenship-why-the-text-history-and-structure-of-a-landmark-1952-statute-doom-trumps-executive-order-14160/
Magliocca, Gerard N. American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment. NYU P, 2016.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/#tab-opinion-1918088
For SCOTUS junkies only: Adam Feldman, What oral argument told us in the birthright citizenship case, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 3, 2026, 12:00 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/04/what-oral-argument-told-us-in-the-birthright-citizenship-case/ A data analysis of the justices questions by Adam Feldman.
Summary of Justices' questions:
Chief Justice Roberts: Roberts questioned the leap from narrow historical exceptions (such as children of foreign diplomats or invading enemies) to a broad exclusion of children born to illegal immigrants. He sought clarity on how the government's "domicile-based theory" of jurisdiction aligned with the text of the Citizenship Clause.
Justice Thomas: Thomas focused on the historical context, specifically how the Citizenship Clause was intended to correct the Dred Scott decision. He also inquired about the relationship between national and state citizenship and whether the term "reside" in the Constitution should be synonymous with "domicile". His was also the lowest word count.
Justice Sotomayor: Sotomayor emphasized that the 14th Amendment's proponents intended for a universal rule of citizenship for all born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' status. She expressed concern that the government's theory could lead to "unnaturalizing" individuals born in the U.S. to undocumented residents.
Justice Alito: Alito proposed that when a broad "general rule" like birthright citizenship is established, it should naturally apply to future circumstances, such as illegal immigration, even if not explicitly contemplated at the time of adoption. He used a "microwave oven" analogy to illustrate how old laws adapt to new situations.
Justice Kagan: Kagan challenged the government's reliance on "esoteric" and "obscure" sources to define jurisdiction through allegiance and domicile. She argued that the plain meaning of being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. is simply being subject to its laws and authority.
Justice Gorsuch: Gorsuch noted a lack of evidence that the Framers of the 14th Amendment focused on domicile or allegiance in their debates. He questioned whether the government was seeking a definitive constitutional ruling rather than a narrower statutory interpretation.
Justice Jackson: Jackson suggested that the 14th Amendment was specifically designed to move away from allowing Congress or the states to determine who is a citizen. She also posited that historical emphasis on "domicile" in precedents like Wong Kim Ark might have been included for public optics rather than as a strict legal requirement. Jackson and Barret almost tied for the most questions, or longest, anyway. Highest word count.
Justice Barrett: Barrett highlighted that the common law traditionally focused on the child's place of birth, whereas the government’s theory shifted the focus to the parents' intent and allegiance. She raised practical concerns about how the government would adjudicate citizenship for "foundlings" (children of unknown parents) or determine a parent's "intent to stay" at the moment of birth.
Justice Kavanaugh: Kavanaugh questioned why the government was not asking to overrule Wong Kim Ark if they believed its current application was incorrect. He also explored the principle of constitutional avoidance, wondering if the case could be resolved on statutory grounds rather than making a major constitutional ruling.
No comments:
Post a Comment