The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments April 1 in *Trump v. Barbara*, a case challenging President Trump's executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship for children born to mothers on temporary visas or without legal authorization.
Trump issued the executive order on his first day back in the White House, claiming the 14th Amendment does not grant U.S. citizenship to children born to fathers who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents and mothers who are in the United States without federal authorization or with only temporary authorization.
The case has drawn significant attention as it directly challenges the longstanding interpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1868. The amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
In its written brief submitted to the court last month, the solicitor general's office, which represents the federal government in Supreme Court litigation, has mounted a historical argument to support Trump's position. The brief describes the experiences of two men, Ludwig Hausding and Richard Greisser, who were born in the United States but denied U.S. passports in 1885 on the basis that they were not U.S. citizens.
According to the solicitor general, this "executive practice from the 19th century supports the Citizenship Order" by demonstrating that "children of temporarily present aliens" like the parents of Hausding and Greisser do not "become citizens by birth."
To bolster this argument, the government relies on *A Digest of the International Law of the United States*, published in 1886 and edited by Francis Wharton. Wharton, who served various roles as an English professor, Episcopalian minister, and State Department bureaucrat, compiled treatises, diplomatic announcements, and his own legal interpretations in the digest.
However, legal expert César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández argues that the Justice Department's historical interpretation contains critical gaps. In his analysis for SCOTUSblog's "Immigration Matters" series, García Hernández contends that the DOJ has "selectively interpreted the original meaning of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment" and "overlooked the historical importance of certain key laws enacted by Congress."
This critique builds on García Hernández's previous column, where he examined how the Justice Department had allegedly cherry-picked historical evidence to support its position. In his latest analysis, he focuses specifically on Congressional legislation that the DOJ argument fails to address.
The legal challenge to Trump's executive order represents a fundamental question about the scope and interpretation of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause. The amendment was ratified in 1868, primarily to ensure that formerly enslaved people would be recognized as U.S. citizens following the Civil War.
For more than a century, the prevailing legal interpretation has been that children born on U.S. soil automatically receive citizenship, regardless of their parents' immigration status. This principle, known as *jus soli* or "right of the soil," has been a cornerstone of American citizenship law.
The Trump administration's position would fundamentally alter this understanding, creating different classes of birthright citizenship based on parents' legal status. Under the executive order, children born to mothers who are lawful permanent residents or U.S. citizens would still receive citizenship, while those born to mothers on temporary visas or without authorization would not.
Legal scholars have debated whether such a change requires a constitutional amendment or can be accomplished through executive action and congressional legislation. The Supreme Court's decision in *Trump v. Barbara* will likely provide definitive guidance on this question.
The case also raises broader questions about executive power and the ability of presidents to reinterpret longstanding constitutional principles through executive orders. Immigration law experts note that birthright citizenship affects hundreds of thousands of children born in the United States each year.
If the court upholds Trump's executive order, it could create immediate practical challenges for hospitals, state agencies, and families navigating the citizenship determination process. The ruling could also prompt legislative action from Congress, regardless of which party controls the chambers.
The April 1 oral arguments will mark the first time the Supreme Court has directly addressed the scope of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment in decades. The court's conservative majority will face questions about constitutional interpretation, historical precedent, and the balance between federal executive power and established legal doctrine.
Legal observers expect the case to generate significant public interest, given its potential impact on immigration policy and constitutional law. The court's decision, likely to be issued by the end of June, could reshape fundamental aspects of American citizenship law.
The Justice Department's reliance on 19th-century precedents and historical documents like Wharton's digest underscores the importance of originalist constitutional interpretation in the current legal landscape. However, critics argue that this approach fails to account for the full historical record and subsequent legal developments that have shaped citizenship law over the past century and a half.