Supreme Court Hearing on Birthright Citizenship
During oral arguments for the case Trump v. Barbara, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson presented a curious analogy regarding the issue of birthright citizenship. This case challenges the constitutionality of an executive order from former President Donald Trump that aimed to revoke citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants.
Jackson’s argument posited that, hypothetically, if she were to steal a wallet while visiting Japan, she would have a sense of “allegiance” to Japanese laws, given that they could lawfully prosecute her. “I was thinking, I, a U.S. citizen am visiting Japan. And if I steal someone’s wallet there, the Japanese authorities can arrest me,” she explained. “This means they have legal control over me. If my wallet were stolen, I could rely on them to prosecute the thief under Japanese law. So, even as a temporary tourist, I owe some allegiance in that sense.”
She then questioned whether this perspective might also apply to temporary residents and undocumented individuals in the U.S., suggesting they might share a similar kind of allegiance merely by being within the country’s borders.
The justices also engaged with Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who defended Trump’s position, alongside ACLU attorney Cecilia Wang. The arguments focused on the legality of the executive order, which was enacted on Trump’s first day of his second term. Some justices appointed by Trump, including Neil Gorsuch, appeared doubtful about the movement to eliminate birthright citizenship.
Chief Justice John Roberts challenged Sauer’s claim that wealthier foreigners were taking advantage of birthright citizenship. Meanwhile, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised questions about whether the current administration’s stance could affect newly freed slaves.
Jackson has had previous disagreements with her fellow justices, notably with liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Recently, she was unable to gain support for her dissent in the case Chiles v. Salazar, which upheld a Christian counselor’s right to discuss gender identity with confused youth.
Interestingly, the U.S. stands among just 30 nations that impose no restrictions on birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, extended this right to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” to include the children of freed slaves.
Estimates from the Center for Immigration Studies indicate that between 225,000 and 250,000 children were born to undocumented parents in 2023, alongside 70,000 born to temporary visitors.
Notably, Trump became the first sitting president to attend such oral arguments. On his platform, Truth Social, he claimed that foreign countries are “selling citizenships” for financial gain and emphasized that birthright citizenship was originally meant to benefit the children of freed slaves, not the descendants of undocumented immigrants.
