Written in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 by a Congress determined to ensure that the disastrous legal reasoning of the Dred Scott decision, which had held that Black Americans could never be citizens regardless of where they were born, could never be used again. The citizenship phrase of the amendment was carefully worded to make it as plain as possible: everyone who is born or naturalized in the United States and falls under its authority is a citizen. American legislatures, courts, and administrations have interpreted that wording to mean what it seems to express for more than a century. In an executive order issued in January 2025, the Trump administration decided to interpret it differently.
The order, which was signed in the early days of Trump’s second term, aimed to eliminate automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants or individuals with temporary visas. The administration’s constitutional argument is based on a particular interpretation of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”; the argument is that individuals who are temporarily or illegally present in the United States do not satisfy that requirement in the manner that the amendment intended. Almost immediately after it was signed, lower federal courts stopped the executive order, preventing it from going into force while the legal challenges moved up the legal ladder. When the issue reached the Supreme Court in April 2026, oral arguments revealed something that interested legal watchers noticed: a majority of justices, seated across ideological divides, seemed to have serious doubts about the administration’s stance.
| Birthright Citizenship Case — Key Facts & Timeline | |
| The Executive Order | Signed by President Trump in January 2025 following his second inauguration — aimed at ending automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Basis Challenged | The 14th Amendment (ratified 1868) — its citizenship clause reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” |
| Administration’s Legal Theory | The Trump administration argues that undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors are not truly “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. — and that the landmark 1898 ruling United States v. Wong Kim Ark applies only to those permanently domiciled in the country |
| Current Legal Status | The order has not taken effect — blocked immediately by lower federal courts after signing; the case has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in April 2026 |
| Potential Impact | If upheld, an estimated 250,000 babies born annually in the United States could be denied citizenship — one of the largest potential changes to American citizenship law since the 14th Amendment’s ratification |
| Supreme Court Oral Arguments — April 2026 | |
| Chief Justice Roberts | Described the administration’s evidence supporting its reinterpretation as “very quirky” — a notably skeptical characterization from the Court’s chief justice that drew significant attention during the April 2026 proceedings |
| Overall Court Sentiment | A majority of justices — including both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan — expressed skepticism toward the administration’s reading; even conservative justices questioned the ACLU’s position, suggesting the Court is navigating complex procedural questions alongside the constitutional merits |
| Controlling Precedent | United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) — confirmed birthright citizenship for children of foreign-born parents; has governed U.S. citizenship law for over 128 years; Congress additionally codified birthright citizenship into statute in 1940 and 1952 |
| Expected Decision Date | Late June or early July 2026 — the Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling before the end of the current term |
In the measured language of Supreme Court hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts’ description of the evidence the government presented to support its reinterpretation as “very quirky” is a very clear indication. From a different angle, Justice Elena Kagan made the same argument. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898, established the most expansive interpretation of the amendment’s citizenship clause and established a principle that has guided American law for 128 years. It held that a child born on American soil to Chinese immigrant parents was a citizen by birth. The administration’s attorneys contended that Wong Kim Ark does not apply to anybody who was physically present at the moment of birth, but rather only to those who are “domiciled” in the United States, or permanent residents in modern parlance. During the April arguments, a number of justices expressed their opinion that this reading was difficult, if not impossible.
Here, the 14th Amendment’s historical background is more significant than it occasionally is in constitutional disputes. The purpose of the amendment’s ratification was to reverse the 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had denied citizenship to individuals of African descent regardless of where they were born. The language used by the amendment’s framers was intended to be broad and challenging to reverse through later judicial interpretation. For its part, Congress twice codified birthright citizenship into statute law (in 1940 and 1952), indicating that the legislative branch has consistently affirmed its interpretation of the amendment. According to the administration’s reasoning, a court must determine that this entire history is based on a misinterpretation that has managed to endure uncontested for more than a century.
The case’s practical implications are real. An estimated 250,000 babies born in the US each year would no longer be granted automatic citizenship if the Supreme Court upheld the executive order’s interpretation, a conclusion that seemed doubtful but not impossible during the April oral arguments. Not only would this impact children of illegal immigrants, but it would also have an impact on children born to individuals in the nation with a variety of temporary statuses, including work, student, and tourist visas. Families whose circumstances range from recent arrivals to those who have lived and worked in the United States for years under legal temporary status would be greatly impacted by the administrative and humanitarian ramifications of that shift.
Beneath the surface of this case is a larger argument that merits direct identification. The endeavor to reinterpret birthright citizenship is a component of a larger legal endeavor to radically change the definition of membership in the United States through legislation, executive decrees, and judicial appointments. The idea that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” can be interpreted narrowly enough to deny protection to the majority of undocumented immigrants is not new; it has been put out in conservative legal circles for many years. The second Trump administration’s willingness to test it in front of a Supreme Court that has been altered by the three appointments made by that same administration is novel. The main question the nation is currently waiting for the Court to address, which is anticipated sometime in late June or early July, is whether that reshaping results in a different outcome from what the precedent would predict.
It’s difficult to ignore the significance of a statement penned in 1868 by individuals attempting, in the face of tremendous historical pressure, to make American identity more difficult to deny.
