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
Jill Lepore on What to Read This Fourth of July
Historian Jill Lepore examines America's upcoming 250th anniversary as a moment of profound political tension, comparing today's divisions to the cynical, protest-filled Bicentennial of 1976 while advocating for constitutional deliberation and collective reading as acts of civic participation.
The Fallout of Massive Earthquakes for Venezuela — and the U.S.
Twin earthquakes in Venezuela exposed catastrophic institutional failure where years of politically-motivated shoddy construction and a recent US-backed governmental transition left the state incapable of coordinating rescue efforts, forcing civilians to search for survivors amid collapsed social housing while Washington and local officials struggled with bureaucratic chaos.
Eddie Huang Drops the Tough Guy Act
Author and chef Eddie Huang explores how childhood bullying and systemic stereotypes forced him to adopt a 'tough guy' persona to survive, and how he's worked to unlearn that armor to find authentic connection and vulnerability in relationships.
The Secrets to Being Stink-Free
This podcast episode explains the crucial differences between deodorants and antiperspirants—where the latter uses aluminum compounds to block sweat ducts—and reveals why finding the right product requires extensive personal testing due to unique body chemistry and bacterial flora.