US Supreme Court hears challenge to Trump birthright citizenship order - JURIST - News

## Summary
The policy was intended to restrict the citizenship of children who are US-born but have non-citizen parents. Wang emphasized that the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment establishes a clear rule that birth on US soil is sufficient for citizenship, subject only to narrow historical exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats. Wong Kim Ark , which held that a child born in the US to noncitizen parents was a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. Quoting its brief, the government argued that Wong Kim Ark recognized citizenship for children of aliens “enjoying a permanent domicil and residence” in the US and suggested that the clause does not extend to children of aliens who are not “permitted by the United States to reside here.” The government urged the court to read Wong Kim Ark narrowly and to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment in light of modern immigration realities and sovereign authority over citizenship.

## Article Content
News
MarkThomas
/ Pixabay
The US Supreme Court on Wednesday heard
oral arguments
in Barbara v. Trump, a case that could potentially redefine the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment’s
Citizenship Clause
.
The case involves a policy implemented by an
executive order
from President Donald Trump. The policy was intended to restrict the citizenship of children who are US-born but have non-citizen parents. The plaintiffs, who are US-born, have their citizenship directly impacted by the policy. They are represented by the ACLU on behalf of a birthright citizen named “Barbara,” along with a few others. The plaintiffs are suing to stop the implementation of the policy on the grounds that it is in direct violation of the Constitution.
Counsel for the petitioners, Cecilia Wang,
argued
that the Citizenship Clause has long been understood to confer near-universal birthright citizenship, regardless of parental immigration status. Wang emphasized that the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment establishes a clear rule that birth on US soil is sufficient for citizenship, subject only to narrow historical exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats. She further relied on precedent, particularly
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, which held that a child born in the US to noncitizen parents was a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court has repeatedly reaffirmed its holding for over a century. Wang further emphasized that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted “swiftly to correct the grave error” from
Dred Scott v. Sandford
and was designed to remove citizenship from political discretion, establishing a clear and durable constitutional rule.
The government, by contrast,
argued
that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” read to exclude certain categories of individuals. Quoting its brief, the government argued that
Wong Kim Ark
recognized citizenship for children of aliens “enjoying a permanent domicil and residence” in the US and suggested that the clause does not extend to children of aliens who are not “permitted by the United States to reside here.” The government urged the court to read
Wong Kim Ark
narrowly and to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment in light of modern immigration realities and sovereign authority over citizenship.
Norman Wong, the great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark,
heard
the arguments on Wednesday and urged the court to uphold
Wong Kim Ark
. He said the justices should “not reinvent our rights” and should uphold “the way birthright citizenship stood for 128 years of precedents.”
Trump
attended
the oral argument alongside former Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, marking a rare appearance by a current president at Supreme Court proceedings.
A decision is expected to come out by early summer, before the court’s term ends in late June. In the meantime, the executive order remains blocked, and existing rules remain in effect.

---

## Expert Analysis

### Merits
N/A

### Areas for Consideration
N/A

### Implications
- Trump, a case that could potentially redefine the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause .
- The case involves a policy implemented by an executive order from President Donald Trump.
- The policy was intended to restrict the citizenship of children who are US-born but have non-citizen parents.
- The plaintiffs, who are US-born, have their citizenship directly impacted by the policy.

### Expert Commentary
This article covers citizenship, court, wong topics. Readability: Flesch-Kincaid grade 0.0. Word count: 458.