The Department of Justice has filed a brief with the Supreme Court defending President Donald Trump's executive order that seeks to restrict birthright citizenship, marking a high-stakes legal battle over the interpretation of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause. The government argues that Trump's order correctly applies the original meaning of the constitutional provision that grants citizenship to persons born "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
The Justice Department's brief urges the Supreme Court to examine historical evidence from the 19th century, citing books, letters, judicial opinions, and even a funeral speech to support the administration's position. According to the government, this historical analysis demonstrates that the 14th Amendment was not intended to grant automatic citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil, particularly those born to non-citizen parents.
However, legal observers note that the DOJ's approach appears selective in its use of historical sources. While the brief mines written texts from more than a century ago for supportive phrases, critics argue it ignores the broader political movement that led to the 14th Amendment's adoption in 1868 - a movement explicitly designed to dramatically expand citizenship rights following the Civil War.
The citizenship clause has been interpreted consistently by courts and executive branch agencies since ratification to grant U.S. citizenship at birth to virtually everyone born in the United States. The only recognized exceptions have been children born to diplomats, Native Americans (until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924), and invading military forces. For more than 150 years, courts and presidential administrations have treated the citizenship or immigration status of a child's parents as irrelevant to birthright citizenship determinations.
Trump's executive order, issued on the first day of his second term, seeks to fundamentally alter this longstanding interpretation. Under the order, children born in the United States would not automatically receive citizenship if their father is neither a U.S. citizen nor lawful permanent resident and their mother was living in the United States at the time of birth under a temporary visa or without federal government permission.
The case before the Supreme Court, *Trump v. Barbara*, directly challenges the legality of this executive order. In July, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante of New Hampshire found that the executive order likely violates the 14th Amendment, setting up the current Supreme Court review.
The government's constitutional argument hinges on the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment. The Justice Department contends that this language was intended to exclude certain categories of people from birthright citizenship, including children of non-citizen parents who lack permanent legal status in the United States.
This interpretation represents a departure from established legal precedent. The Supreme Court addressed similar questions in the 1898 case *United States v. Wong Kim Ark*, which affirmed birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizen parents who were legally residing in the United States. That decision has served as a cornerstone of American citizenship law for over a century.
The constitutional debate centers on competing theories of interpretation. The Justice Department advocates for an originalist approach, arguing that the 14th Amendment should be understood according to its drafters' specific intentions. Opponents contend that this selective reading ignores the amendment's broader purpose of expanding citizenship rights and overturning the Supreme Court's decision in *Dred Scott v. Sandford*, which had denied citizenship to African Americans.
The case has significant implications for millions of Americans. According to immigration law experts, the executive order could potentially affect the citizenship status of hundreds of thousands of children born annually in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent residents.
Legal scholars have noted the unusual nature of attempting to alter constitutional interpretation through executive action. Traditionally, changes to constitutional meaning have occurred through the amendment process, Supreme Court decisions, or congressional action. Using an executive order to reinterpret a constitutional provision represents a novel approach that raises questions about separation of powers.
The Supreme Court's decision in this case will likely have far-reaching consequences for immigration law, constitutional interpretation, and the fundamental question of who can claim American citizenship. The court's ruling could either affirm the traditional understanding of birthright citizenship or endorse a more restrictive interpretation that would represent one of the most significant changes to American citizenship law since Reconstruction.
As the case proceeds, both sides are preparing for oral arguments that will likely focus on the historical meaning of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause and the proper methods for constitutional interpretation. The outcome will determine whether the United States maintains its longstanding practice of granting citizenship to nearly all children born within its borders or adopts a more restrictive approach that considers parental immigration status.
The Supreme Court's decision is expected to clarify not only the scope of birthright citizenship but also the limits of executive power to reinterpret constitutional provisions through administrative action.