The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a major constitutional challenge to President-elect Donald Trump’s proposal to terminate birthright citizenship through executive action.
Kabul 24: The case, expected to be argued in the current term, could determine whether children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders will automatically lose their constitutional right to American citizenship.
At the heart of the dispute is the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified in 1868), which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”Trump and his allies argue that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of non-citizens who entered the country illegally or hold only temporary status.
They claim a presidential executive order, or narrow statutory reinterpretation, is sufficient to end the practice often called “birth tourism” and “anchor babies.”However, the overwhelming consensus among constitutional scholars, including many conservative jurists, is that the 1898 Supreme Court decision in United States v.
Wong Kim Ark conclusively settled the issue. In that landmark 6–2 ruling, the Court held that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrant parents—who were legally barred from naturalizing at the time—was nevertheless a citizen by birth.
The only recognized exceptions remain children of foreign diplomats and those born during enemy occupation.
Legal experts warn that overturning birthright citizenship without a constitutional amendment (requiring two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states) would be unprecedented and could render millions of children stateless, trigger massive litigation, and upend more than a century of settled law.
Supporters of the challenge point to the current 6–3 conservative majority on the Court and suggest Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have previously signaled openness to revisiting old precedents.
Critics counter that even conservative originalists have historically upheld Wong Kim Ark as faithful to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The outcome of this case could represent one of the most significant shifts in American immigration and constitutional law in over 150 years.
