Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Challenge
On Monday, legal analyst Greg Jarrett from Fox News suggested that President Donald Trump might have a viable strategy regarding birthright citizenship restrictions. This comes as the Supreme Court is set to hear a case that could reshape what it means to be an American citizen after Trump enacted a presidential order to eliminate birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders.
During an appearance on “Evening Edit,” Jarrett expressed confidence that Trump’s stance could resonate with the justices. He stated, “The media often claims Trump will lose. I don’t think that’s accurate. His arguments against granting automatic citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants hold weight.” He further explained that the authors of the 14th Amendment didn’t envision it applying to individuals who entered the country unlawfully, which is why they inserted the phrase “subject to jurisdiction.”
Moreover, Jarrett pointed out that the 14th Amendment restricts automatic citizenship to those fully under U.S. authority, implying that children born to undocumented parents may not fulfill that condition. He elaborated, “This reflects a loyalty to the United States. Merely being present on American soil doesn’t equate to loyalty, especially for many undocumented individuals who remain concealed from view. They don’t pay taxes, file returns, or possess Social Security numbers. If their locations and allegiances remain uncertain, how can they be considered ‘subject to jurisdiction’?”
He asserted that examining the deliberations from 1868 reveals Congress aimed to grant citizenship primarily to former slaves rather than to the offspring of illegal immigrants, predicting that some justices might align with Trump’s perspective.
“If you revisit those discussions from 1868, none of the evidence suggests that Congress intended to extend citizenship to the children of those living here illegally. The primary objective was to affirm citizenship for formerly enslaved individuals,” he added. So, as the case unfolds, it’s plausible that some justices will support Trump’s argument. The real question is, will there be sufficient backing?”
A ruling from June 2025 regarding the Trump administration’s challenge to a nationwide block on the executive order hinted at how some justices may view this situation, even if the court did not directly decide on the order’s content. In the case of United States v. CASA, the justices determined that the district court might have exceeded its authority with a “universal injunction” halting the president’s policy nationwide.
In response to the ruling, left-leaning groups promptly filed a class-action lawsuit for immigrant children who could potentially lose their citizenship due to Trump’s order. After a lower court deemed the order unconstitutional, the administration sought a Supreme Court review. The justices agreed to revisit the matter in December.
The Trump administration contends that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was intended for “newly freed slaves and their children, not for the offspring of temporary visitors or illegal immigrants.” Officials argue that illegal immigrants don’t qualify under U.S. jurisdiction.
“The primary aim of the Citizenship Clause was to afford citizenship to freedmen and their children, whose allegiance to the U.S. was typically cemented through generations of residency,” the administration stated. They contrasted this with individuals merely passing through the U.S. or crossing borders unlawfully, asserting that such individuals lack the loyalty needed for their children to gain “the precious and profound gift” of citizenship.
