Supreme Court hears arguments on birthright citizenship this week
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on what may be one of the most important cases of the 21st century: birthright citizenship.
Whether or not he is before the court Trump’s executive order The decision, which ends birthright citizenship, complies with the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause after multiple judges blocked the decision from taking effect while it is under litigation.
Strictly speaking, the Court will consider whether a person born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a citizen, regardless of the status of their parents.
ALİTO DAMAGED LAWYER’S WORD SALAD THAT INVENTED THE ASYLUM ACT
Demonstrators hold an anti-Trump banner outside the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on June 27, 2025. (ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)
The Trump administration faces an uphill battle, given that courts have routinely upheld birthright citizenship for more than a century.
However, the current Court did not hesitate to overturn high-profile decisions: dobbs rollover Roe (abortion) and loper rollover Strip (administrative state). It is very interesting that the court even decided to address this issue. As always, the devil will be in the details as to how broadly or narrowly they decide the case, or whether they find a way to address the issue entirely.
How did we get here?
Fourteenth Amendment, Part 1 The Constitution states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside.”
SUPREME COURT PREPARES TO REVIEW TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON BIRTH RIGHT CITIZENSHIP
President Donald Trump walks to speak with reporters before boarding Air Force One at Palm Beach International Airport on March 23, 2026 in West Palm Beach, Florida. (SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
Date: The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 in response to 1) the end of the Civil War and 2) the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which concluded that enslaved persons (and their children) were not American citizens and therefore had no rights and could not sue in federal court, among other things. Michigan Senator Jacob Howard wrote the “subject to jurisdiction” clause and in his speeches at the time said that this clause did not cover “persons born in the United States, foreigners, aliens, members of the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers”.
Why is this important?: In the coming debates, expect a lot of discussion about what “subject to the jurisdiction of” means, especially since the subsequent Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 mirrors the language of the 14th Amendment – a citizen is someone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
D.C. COURT DECISIONS STOPPED TRUMP’S AGENDA ON IMMIGRATION, POLICING, AND THE FED — INCREASING EXECUTIVE POWER
People demonstrate in front of the United States Supreme Court in Washington, DC on May 15, 2025 (Washington Post via Matt McClain/Getty Images)
Wong Kim Ark: The 1898 U.S. Supreme Court decision that gave us birthright citizenship as we know it today. The case involved the US-born adult child of a permanent resident of China who was denied re-entry into the US after returning from a trip to China. At that time, it was generally difficult for Chinese citizens to become citizens.
In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that children born on U.S. soil are automatically granted citizenship, with very few exceptions, such as the children of diplomats. He interpreted “subject to jurisdiction” to mean subject to U.S. law.
The Court concluded that citizens and non-citizens alike are subject to the laws of the country in which they reside. The court emphasized that Ark’s parents were “permanent residents” of the United States. This decision was controversial at the time because it ignored previous Supreme Court language finding that children born to foreign parents were not citizens. However, Wong Kim ArkIn its opinion, the Court rejected this argument, finding that the prior language was merely “dicta,” that is, language not required for these decisions and therefore did not constitute a binding precedent.
CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION
In conclusion: This is the blockbuster case of the Supreme Court era. A decision is expected in late June.
