Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
The Trump administration has officially requested that the U.S. Supreme Court review President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at limiting birthright citizenship. This significant legal maneuver could potentially redefine a fundamental constitutional right that has been entrenched in American law for generations.
As this request unfolds, the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, alongside several other advocacy groups, has filed a class action lawsuit in federal court in New Hampshire. This marks a pivotal escalation in a legal battle that dates back to the Reconstruction era, spotlighting the long-standing debate over the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
At the heart of this case lies the question of whether the United States will continue to recognize all children born on its soil as citizens. This principle was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898.
The implications of the Supreme Court’s decision extend beyond current citizenship practices, as it could also reshape the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Traditionally, this clause has assured citizenship to virtually every child born within U.S. territory, irrespective of their parents’ immigration status.
Trump’s Executive Order Explained
Trump’s executive order seeks to refine this interpretation, aiming to limit automatic citizenship to children born to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. If upheld, this action could result in many children born in the United States being denied automatic citizenship annually.
The case references the historical ruling of Wong Kim Ark, in which the Supreme Court determined that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, who were excluded from naturalization, was nonetheless an American citizen under the 14th Amendment. This decision solidified the doctrine of jus soli, which grants citizenship based on birth location, with only a few narrow exceptions for the children of diplomats and occupying foreign nations.
Legal Perspectives on the Order
Critics of this executive order assert that the text and historical context of the Constitution are explicit in their meaning. John Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley, emphasizes that the Framers were influenced by British jus soli traditions. He argues that the lawmakers during the Reconstruction period broadened the notion of citizenship to fully incorporate formerly enslaved individuals and their descendants.
In his writings, Yoo states, “It is simply beyond doubt that the Framers operated by borrowing and adopting common law principles. To advance an interpretation that rejects this understanding, we would need significant historical evidence demonstrating that the Framers intended a fundamentally new approach.”
Conversely, proponents of the executive order contend that the phrase
