Seeking to create new restrictions on citizenship rights, President Trump argued that the government has been misinterpreting the 14th Amendment for more than a century.
WASHINGTON (CN) – In a landmark ruling that affirms over a century of precedent, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected President Donald Trump’s desire to impose new restrictions on citizenship rights for the children of some U.S.-born immigrants.
In 1868, Congress ratified the 14th Amendment, declaring that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” But for purposes of determining who has citizenship under the 14th Amendment, the White House — bucking long-standing precedent — argued the central clause was not “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” but “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Thirty years after the 14th Amendment enshrined citizenship rights in the Constitution, the Supreme Court affirmed those rights for children of foreign nationals. IN United States v. Wong Kim Ark In 1898, the Supreme Court established the parameters of what is known as jus soli, or the citizenship of children born in the United States to non-citizens.
For more than a century since then, and with little fanfare, the United States has granted citizenship to most people — with exceptions for children of diplomats or occupying armies — born within its territorial borders.
Then, in an executive order last year, Trump purported to erase birthright citizenship for children of individuals who do not have legal status or who only have temporary legal status. He argued that immigrants without legal status and foreigners participating in “native tourism” had degraded it the meaning and value of American citizenship.
While the government has recognized citizenship rights for all individuals born on American soil for more than a century, Trump argued that his predecessors were wrong.
He said the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was a solution to a single problem: Dred Scott v. Sandford. In that infamous 1857 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that formerly enslaved African Americans and their descendants were not citizens.
This theory, the White House argued, was supported by an 1884 case known as Elk v. Wilkinswhich stated that Native Americans born within the territory of the United States did not have citizenship by birth. Since its passage, the citizenship clause has included exceptions for children of diplomats, occupying enemy forces, and Native Americans.
Congress codified civil rights in 1940 and again in 1952, using language identical to the Constitution.
When the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in AprilTrump made the unprecedented move of attending in person. There is no recorded history of a president ever participating in an oral debate session.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing arguments provides the latest on ongoing trials, major litigation and decisions in courts around the US and the world, while monthly Under the lights feeds legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
