Supreme Court Ruling on Birthright Citizenship May Turn on a Single Phrase: 'Subject to the Jurisdiction'
The Supreme Court's long-awaited decision on birthright citizenship is set to be announced next summer, and the outcome may hinge on one phrase: "subject to the jurisdiction." The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause has sparked intense debate over whether it grants automatic citizenship to all U.S.-born children of immigrants.
A recent executive order issued by President Donald Trump effectively removed birthright citizenship for certain groups of children born in the United States, sparking a wave of litigation that culminated in Trump v. Washington, an appeal by the president to remove the injunction put in place by federal courts.
At its core, the dispute revolves around the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction." Both sides agree that a child must be born inside U.S. borders and meet certain criteria to be eligible for citizenship. However, each side offers vastly different interpretations of what it means to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
The Trump administration argues that this phrase refers only to a small set of exceptions rooted in traditional British common law, such as children of foreign diplomats or members of invading armies. In contrast, advocates for automatic citizenship argue that the 14th Amendment's expansion of citizenship after the abolition of slavery was meant to be broad and inclusive, encompassing all persons who arrived on U.S. soil under the protection of the Constitution.
One key precedent in this debate is the landmark case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. In that ruling, the court recognized the natural-born citizenship of an American-born descendant of resident noncitizens, citing the customary law of England brought to America by the colonists. However, opponents argue that the court's decision has been misrepresented and was based on a flawed understanding of British common law.
The Supreme Court is likely to announce its ruling in summer 2026, just in time for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. A divided outcome is expected, with strong arguments from both sides. The liberal justices are likely to side against the Trump administration, while the six Republican-appointed justices may divide along party lines.
The outcome will depend on whether the court's originalist justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett – reject the British common law foundations of the Wong Kim Ark ruling in favor of citizenship by consent alone. If they do, the Trump administration may prevail. However, if at least two conservatives join the liberal justices, a majority will likely uphold universal birthright citizenship.
The Supreme Court's decision on this matter has far-reaching implications for American society and its values. As Professor Morgan Marietta notes, "America should know by July Fourth" whether the court will side with the Trump administration or uphold the Constitution's commitment to broad citizenship grounded in equality.
The Supreme Court's long-awaited decision on birthright citizenship is set to be announced next summer, and the outcome may hinge on one phrase: "subject to the jurisdiction." The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause has sparked intense debate over whether it grants automatic citizenship to all U.S.-born children of immigrants.
A recent executive order issued by President Donald Trump effectively removed birthright citizenship for certain groups of children born in the United States, sparking a wave of litigation that culminated in Trump v. Washington, an appeal by the president to remove the injunction put in place by federal courts.
At its core, the dispute revolves around the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction." Both sides agree that a child must be born inside U.S. borders and meet certain criteria to be eligible for citizenship. However, each side offers vastly different interpretations of what it means to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
The Trump administration argues that this phrase refers only to a small set of exceptions rooted in traditional British common law, such as children of foreign diplomats or members of invading armies. In contrast, advocates for automatic citizenship argue that the 14th Amendment's expansion of citizenship after the abolition of slavery was meant to be broad and inclusive, encompassing all persons who arrived on U.S. soil under the protection of the Constitution.
One key precedent in this debate is the landmark case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. In that ruling, the court recognized the natural-born citizenship of an American-born descendant of resident noncitizens, citing the customary law of England brought to America by the colonists. However, opponents argue that the court's decision has been misrepresented and was based on a flawed understanding of British common law.
The Supreme Court is likely to announce its ruling in summer 2026, just in time for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. A divided outcome is expected, with strong arguments from both sides. The liberal justices are likely to side against the Trump administration, while the six Republican-appointed justices may divide along party lines.
The outcome will depend on whether the court's originalist justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett – reject the British common law foundations of the Wong Kim Ark ruling in favor of citizenship by consent alone. If they do, the Trump administration may prevail. However, if at least two conservatives join the liberal justices, a majority will likely uphold universal birthright citizenship.
The Supreme Court's decision on this matter has far-reaching implications for American society and its values. As Professor Morgan Marietta notes, "America should know by July Fourth" whether the court will side with the Trump administration or uphold the Constitution's commitment to broad citizenship grounded in equality.
But this whole "subject to the jurisdiction" thing is super confusing... I mean, if it just means someone of foreign diplomats or invading armies aren't eligible then why can't kids of immigrants be citizens too? 
Can't we just say they're citizens already and not make some big deal out of it? 
I mean, if it really only applies to diplomats and soldiers, then what about all those other immigrants who come here and make a life for themselves? it feels like they're trying to pick and choose which kids get citizenship and which don't 
the whole thing is just so messed up.
I'm not convinced that the Supreme Court is doing the right thing here. If they rule that "subject to the jurisdiction" only applies to diplomatic kids or soldiers, it's like saying their parents aren't good enough for them just because of where they were born 
. And honestly, I'm not sure why we even need a special debate about this - isn't it kind of obvious that 'born on American soil' should automatically make you an American citizen? 
. and what's w/ the precedent of that Wong Kim Ark case? 
didnt they already settle this back in 1898?
. it just feels like we're takin away a fundamental right from so many ppl who have made America home 
can u imagine if this decision goes the other way? 
its gonna be chaos, fam! 
. The court's decision is going to have a huge impact on our society, and I hope they make a ruling that promotes equality for all 
the 14th amendment was meant to be inclusive and expand citizenship after slavery 
but now its getting caught up in what 'subject to jurisdiction' actually means 
and hopefully they wont mess it up 