This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a significant case regarding birthright citizenship, which many believe could have far-reaching implications.
The central question pertains to a Trump executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship, arguing it aligns with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This order has faced legal challenges, leading several judges to halt its implementation as the case progresses through the courts.
In simpler terms, the court will examine whether being born on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship, irrespective of the parents’ immigration status.
The Trump administration is likely to encounter difficulties, as courts have upheld birthright citizenship for over a century. Yet, recent trends indicate that current courts are willing to overturn established precedents. The recent decisions regarding key issues suggest the court’s willingness to challenge historical rulings, leaving many to wonder how this particular case will unfold.
How did we get here?
The Fourteenth Amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens.” The Supreme Court is preparing to revisit the matter initiated by Trump’s executive order concerning citizenship by birth.
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, largely in response to the aftermath of the Civil War and the 1857 Dred Scott decision. Notably, one of the Amendment’s authors, Jacob Howard, indicated in a speech that the term “subject to jurisdiction” did not apply to “aliens born in the United States” or to families of foreign diplomats.
This is particularly crucial as the discussion about what “subject to its jurisdiction” means will likely gain prominence. This terminology was also reflected in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which states that being born in the U.S. implies subjectivity to its jurisdiction.
One landmark ruling worth mentioning is Wong Kim Ark, a case from 1898 where the Supreme Court affirmed that individuals born on U.S. soil typically receive citizenship, with exceptions like children of diplomats. The court interpreted “subject to jurisdiction” to mean abiding by U.S. laws, emphasizing that both citizens and non-citizens are under the law’s purview.
In conclusion, this case stands out as a pivotal one for the Supreme Court this term, with a ruling expected by late June.
