The Supreme Court Takes On Birthright Citizenship
TL;DR
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on President Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship, with justices from across the ideological spectrum expressing skepticism toward the administration's novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment's 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' clause.
⚖️ The Administration's Legal Argument 3 insights
Allegiance-based jurisdiction theory
Solicitor General John Sauer argued the 14th Amendment requires 'complete allegiance' to the U.S., claiming children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors are not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' because they owe loyalty to foreign nations.
Narrow reading of Wong Kim Ark
The administration claimed the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision supports their position by focusing on 'domicile,' arguing the ruling only applied to children of parents with legal permanent residence rather than creating a universal birthright citizenship rule.
Originalist historical appeals
Sauer cited 19th-century Senate debates and Senator Trumbull's statements about 'allegiance' to argue the original public meaning of the citizenship clause excluded children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens.
🔍 Judicial Skepticism and Pushback 3 insights
Roberts calls theory 'quirky'
Chief Justice John Roberts challenged the administration's attempt to expand narrow historical exceptions for children of diplomats and invading armies to cover an entire class of undocumented immigrants, calling the examples 'idiosyncratic.'
Conservative justices question precedent manipulation
Justice Neil Gorsuch warned Sauer not to rely heavily on Wong Kim Ark while simultaneously trying to limit its holding, noting the word 'domicile' appears nowhere in the 14th Amendment's drafting history.
Textual clarity concerns
Justice Elena Kagan criticized the administration's use of 'obscure esoteric references,' pointing out that the amendment's text focuses on the child's status at birth rather than parental immigration status or allegiance.
🛡️ Opposition's Defense of Birthright Citizenship 2 insights
Plain text interpretation
ACLU attorney Cecilia Wong argued the 14th Amendment's guarantee that 'all persons born' on U.S. soil are citizens is straightforward and was designed to be beyond the reach of government officials to destroy.
Wong Kim Ark precedent stands
Wong emphasized that the 1898 decision established a broad rule of birthright citizenship, and the government's concession that they were not asking to overrule the case fatally undermined their argument for a parental domicile requirement.
Bottom Line
The Supreme Court appears unlikely to uphold the administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship via executive order, as both conservative and liberal justices found the legal arguments for reinterpreting the 14th Amendment's clear text historically strained and legally unconvincing.
More from New York Times Podcasts
View all
MAHA Is No Longer Useful to Trump | 'The Opinions' Podcast
The MAHA movement is fragmenting as its contradictory coalition proves politically unsustainable, revealing itself to be more of an opportunistic brand than a governing force, even as it taps into legitimate grievances about healthcare affordability and environmental health that neither party adequately addresses.
I Tried Everything to Escape My Heartbreak. Only This Worked.
TV writer Lauren Bans discovered escape rooms as an unlikely remedy for heartbreak after her husband's infidelity ended their marriage while she was seven months pregnant, finding that the intense cognitive focus required by immersive puzzles succeeded where therapy, Reiki, and traditional distractions failed.
A Trump Dissenter Fights for His Political Life
Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky conservative who has defied Trump on key votes including Epstein file transparency, faces his toughest primary challenge ever from Trump-endorsed Ed Galrine in what's become the most expensive House primary in American history.
The Courtroom Showdown Between Elon Musk and Sam Altman
Elon Musk is suing OpenAI for $150 billion, claiming Sam Altman betrayed the company's original nonprofit mission by converting it into a for-profit entity, in a trial that hinges on which billionaire the jury finds more credible.