The Supreme Court is set to review the Trump administration’s Executive Order 14160, which challenges the longstanding constitutional principle of birthright citizenship in the United States.
The Supreme Court’s decision to review the Trump administration’s effort to revive Executive Order 14160 has thrust the issue of birthright citizenship into the national spotlight. This constitutional protection, enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, has been a cornerstone of American law since its ratification in 1868.
Supporters of the executive order argue that it represents a necessary correction to what they perceive as an overly lenient citizenship system. However, a thorough examination of constitutional and historical precedents reveals a clear truth: no president possesses the authority to alter the Fourteenth Amendment through executive action.
The Constitution explicitly outlines the process for amending its text, and presidential action is not included in that framework. Justice Samuel Chase articulated this principle as far back as 1798, stating, “the President has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.” This foundational concept remains pivotal in the current debate surrounding birthright citizenship.
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The language is intentionally broad, crafted to counteract the effects of the notorious 1857 Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship to Black Americans. The Amendment was designed to ensure that no group residing on American soil could be relegated to a permanent underclass.
The principle of birthright citizenship, known as jus soli (citizenship by birthplace), has deep roots in English common law and was adopted by early American states. Congress further solidified the Amendment’s guarantees through legislation in 1940 and 1952. For over 150 years, administrations from both major political parties have treated birthright citizenship as a constitutional rule rather than a policy subject to presidential discretion.
The administration’s argument relies on a narrow interpretation of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.” However, the Supreme Court has already decisively rejected this interpretation. In the landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Court affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment enshrined the common-law principle of jus soli. The only exceptions to automatic citizenship are limited to children of foreign diplomats, children born to occupying enemy forces, and certain individuals not subject to American law.
Importantly, immigration status—whether undocumented or on a temporary visa—has never been included among these exceptions. Undocumented immigrants are indeed subject to U.S. law; they can be taxed, arrested, prosecuted, and deported. Harvard Law scholar Gerald Neuman has characterized the administration’s interpretation as “either a crazy theory or a dishonest interpretation of the Constitution.”
Executive Order 14160 is constitutionally flawed because it attempts to condition birthright citizenship on the legal status of a child’s parents—an alteration that could only be achieved through a constitutional amendment. Even if the order were to apply solely to future births, the fundamental issue remains unchanged: the executive branch lacks the authority to redefine constitutional membership.
The Amendment was specifically designed to prevent citizenship from becoming a political tool manipulated by changing administrations. Allowing a president to unilaterally modify it would undermine the separation of powers and destabilize the constitutional guarantees that have endured for over a century.
Federal courts recognized the order’s constitutional conflicts almost immediately. A district court blocked the order shortly after its announcement, citing its clear contradiction with established constitutional text and precedent.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming review will not only clarify who qualifies as an American citizen but will also address the critical question of whether a president can rewrite a constitutional promise that has stood firm for generations. The implications of this case extend far beyond the immediate issue of citizenship, touching on the very foundations of American democracy and the rule of law.
As the nation awaits the Court’s decision, the future of birthright citizenship hangs in the balance, reminding us of the enduring importance of constitutional protections in safeguarding the rights of all individuals within the United States, according to Global Net News.