The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on April 1 in a challenge to President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end the guarantee of citizenship to virtually everyone born in the United States. The high-profile case has generated substantial legal interest, with 18 amicus briefs filed in support of the Trump administration and one additional brief that, while theoretically neutral, tends to favor the administration's position.
The legal dispute centers on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, which states that "[a]ll persons born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The Trump administration argues that obtaining citizenship at birth requires being "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," which they interpret as meaning one must be "completely subject" to the country's "political jurisdiction" and owe it "direct and immediate allegiance."
According to the federal government's position, children of noncitizens who live only temporarily in the United States "owe primary allegiance to their parents' home countries, not the United States" and therefore fall outside the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause. This interpretation would fundamentally alter the longstanding practice of granting citizenship to most children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status.
Several supporting briefs elaborate on the administration's constitutional arguments. Law professor Ilan Wurman provides historical analysis of early English and U.S. citizenship practices, contending that birthright citizenship was not universally available as commonly believed. Instead, he argues it was only available to children of "parents under the sovereign's protection," with parents owing allegiance to the sovereign in exchange for that protection.
Wurman's brief suggests this historical rule "is unlikely to have applied" to children of undocumented immigrants, whose parents would not have been considered under the sovereign's protection. He further argues that "the leading drafters of the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment appear to have presumed temporary visitors would be excluded" from birthright citizenship because they were not subject to the "complete jurisdiction" of the United States.
Another law professor, Richard Epstein, contributes additional scholarly support for the administration's position, though the full details of his arguments were not included in the available materials. The confluence of academic and legal support demonstrates the administration's effort to build a comprehensive constitutional case for restricting birthright citizenship.
The case represents one of the most significant constitutional challenges of Trump's presidency, potentially affecting millions of individuals born in the United States to non-citizen parents. The outcome could reshape fundamental aspects of American citizenship law that have been in place since the Reconstruction era.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, primarily to ensure that formerly enslaved persons and their children would be recognized as U.S. citizens. The citizenship clause was designed to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in *Dred Scott v. Sandford* (1857), which held that African Americans could not be U.S. citizens.
Legal experts note that the Supreme Court has rarely addressed the precise meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the context of birthright citizenship. The phrase has generally been understood to exclude only children of foreign diplomats and enemy occupying forces, groups explicitly not subject to U.S. legal jurisdiction.
The administration's challenge has drawn comparisons to other high-profile cases from this term, including the dispute over Trump's tariff policies, which similarly generated substantial amicus brief activity. The volume of outside legal interest reflects the far-reaching implications of the court's eventual decision.
Amicus briefs from organizations and individuals challenging the administration's position are expected to be filed later this month. These briefs will likely argue for maintaining the current interpretation of birthright citizenship and may provide historical and constitutional arguments opposing the administration's narrow reading of the 14th Amendment's jurisdiction requirement.
The timing of oral arguments on April 1 places the case among the most closely watched of the Supreme Court's current term. The court's decision, expected by late June or early July, will either uphold the traditional understanding of birthright citizenship or potentially authorize the most restrictive interpretation of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause in modern American history.
The case's resolution will have immediate practical implications for immigration policy and longer-term constitutional significance for how the court interprets Reconstruction-era amendments designed to expand civil rights and citizenship protections.