Interpretation of one phrase will determine Supreme Court's decision on birthright citizenship

On December 5, 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to examine the ongoing debate over birthright citizenship in the United States. A final decision is expected in the summer of 2026.

Earlier in January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that removed automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to both undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors. The order does not apply retroactively. This policy shift triggered numerous lawsuits, culminating in the case Trump v. Washington, where the former president sought to overturn federal court injunctions blocking the rule.

The Courts review will center on the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, known as the citizenship clause: 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. Both supporters and opponents of the Trump policy agree that a child must be born on U.S. soil and under the nations jurisdiction to qualify for birthright citizenship, but they sharply differ on what subject to the jurisdiction means.

Arguments Supporting Birthright Citizenship

Proponents argue that the 14th Amendment was designed to offer broad citizenship protections after the abolition of slavery, covering all individuals born on U.S. soil regardless of race or parental status. They cite historical precedent and consistent practice, including the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed the citizenship of a U.S.-born child of noncitizen parents.

Supporters emphasize that the Constitution, interpreted as a living document, reflects evolving American values and a commitment to equality. Even originalist justices, they argue, should recognize the narrow exceptions to birthright citizenshipsuch as children of diplomats, invading armies, and historically, Native Americansdo not negate its overall inclusivity.

Arguments Opposing Birthright Citizenship

Opponents assert that citizenship in a democracy requires consent. A foreign national cannot claim U.S. citizenship without the governments approval, just as Americans cannot unilaterally claim foreign citizenship. This perspective emphasizes political equality and mutual allegiance, referencing the 1884 Elk v. Wilkins decision, which stated that no one can become a citizen without consent.

Critics of automatic birthright citizenship argue that the Wong Kim Ark ruling only applied to children of lawful permanent residents, not undocumented or temporary residents. They also contend that historical British common law is not directly applicable after the American Revolution. Under this view, Congress and the American people retain authority to define who is accepted as part of the nation, and unauthorized entry does not constitute consent to citizenship.

Potential Outcome

The Court is expected to issue a ruling before July 4, 2026, coinciding with the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The decision will hinge on whether the Constitution prioritizes universal equality or the principle of citizen consent in defining national membership. Three Democratic-appointed justices are expected to oppose the Trump policy, while the six Republican-appointed justices may split, leaving the outcome uncertain. A majority of five justices will be needed to uphold automatic birthright citizenship.

Author: Logan Reeves