file photo

 

The US Supreme Court is set to hear a pivotal case challenging the right to birthright citizenship. This comes after President Donald Trump's executive order attempting to deny citizenship to children born in the US to parents who are in the country illegally was blocked by lower courts. A decision is pending, with arguments scheduled soon, potentially reshaping the nation's immigration laws and the definition of citizenship.

 

For nearly 160 years, the 14th Amendment has guaranteed US citizenship to anyone born on American soil, save for diplomats’ or foreign military personnel's children. Trump's order claims this doesn't apply to those in the country illegally or temporarily, citing perceived threats to national security. However, federal judges have consistently found the ruling violates constitutional rights, leading to several legal challenges.

 

The case has garnered attention from civil liberties groups, with Cecillia Wang of the American Civil Liberties Union asserting that the 14th Amendment's promise of citizenship is unalterable by any president. Historians note the amendment was originally enacted post-Civil War to ensure citizenship for freed slaves and their offspring, underscoring its significance in American history.

 

Reactions have been mixed, as some argue the original intent of the amendment was not inclusive of children of illegal immigrants. US Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues the amendment's adoption aimed solely at granting citizenship to freed slaves and legally present individuals, indicating a narrower intent. Meanwhile, research indicates that revoking birthright citizenship could significantly increase the unauthorised immigrant population by 2075.

 

The implications for millions of Americans are at stake as the court prepares to examine the case. Experts anticipate that the ruling could influence future policies and the broader immigration system. Experts anticipate a landmark decision from the court, potentially establishing a new precedent for citizenship in the USA, reported the BBC.

 

 

 

Key Takeaways

 

• The US Supreme Court will hear a case on birthright citizenship.
• Trump's executive order on citizenship was blocked by lower courts.
• The ruling could redefine US immigration law and citizenship status.

 

Related story

Trump Urges Supreme Court to End Birthright Citizenship

 

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-12-06

 

 

 

"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.": First lines of the 14th Amendment to US Constitution. Nothing to debate. 

The amendment was added due to racist Southerners after Civil War arguing that as freed slaves were once property and not humans, that they couldn't be persons and have equal rights.

With blatant current racist admin and it's backers, they are trying same sort of white nationalist crap.

This does not bode well. They should have refused the case.

I can almost hear the flushing sound. If there no no Constitution, there is no United States. If you read the article carefully, what's at stake is the white population in 2075.

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

Which all patriotic Americans should have, right, Jerry?

3 hours ago, cjinchiangrai said:

This does not bode well. They should have refused the case.

At least part of the case is not the interpretation of the 14th amendment itself but whether Trump can overrule an accepted standard by Executive Order.

Does that mean that Mrs Trump will get her marching orders too? I suppose her dearly beloved husband will grant her political immunity.

4 hours ago, Emdog said:

"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.": First lines of the 14th Amendment to US Constitution. Nothing to debate. 

 

Of course there is something to debate...  "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".  If you're carrying a foreign passport, you're subject to their laws. 

 

The Amendment was enacted when millions of slaves in the USA weren't carrying any passport, and weren't subject to "back home" laws.

 

There's a reason you see thousands of law books on every ambulance chaser lawyer commercial.  A simple reading by lay people isn't how these things are decided.  There's millions of pages of case law to debate.

16 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Of course there is something to debate...  "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".  If you're carrying a foreign passport, you're subject to their laws. 

 

The Amendment was enacted when millions of slaves in the USA weren't carrying any passport, and weren't subject to "back home" laws.

 

There's a reason you see thousands of law books on every ambulance chaser lawyer commercial.  A simple reading by lay people isn't how these things are decided.  There's millions of pages of case law to debate.

"If you're carrying a foreign passport, you're subject to their laws."

Not clear about this... who is 'their'? Unless you have a diplomatic passport, you are subject to whatever the laws of the country you are in has. No mention of passport, which (unless US passport) implies you are not 'born or naturalized" US citizen, so that point is moot.

What are "back home" laws? Are you talking about the Dred Scott decision, which forced return of slave from free state to slave state, that he was property and not a human? Seems this amendment took that in consideration: jurisdiction of state and federal laws of where a person lives applies.... so Dred was rightly tossed out?

I haven't seen an argument against the wording of the amendment which seem clear All persons born or naturalized in the United States,... .... are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 

35 minutes ago, Emdog said:

I haven't seen an argument against the wording of the amendment which seem clear All persons born or naturalized in the United States,... .... are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 

You omitted the words and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, which is a key part of the government's opposition to "All persons" which would not apply they contend, for instance, to an infant born in Waukesha Wisconsin to 2 parents in the country illegally or temporarily.

2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

You omitted the words and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, which is a key part of the government's opposition to "All persons" which would not apply they contend, for instance, to an infant born in Waukesha Wisconsin to 2 parents in the country illegally or temporarily.

 

Agreed.  As I think you pointed out earlier, there was no such thing as organized birthing tours before jet travel.  Which is a quite different state of things compared to back in the 1860s when the Amendment was written.

 

The converse of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is that, as a US citizen, I'm subject to US law no matter where I go in the world.  Just as a Somalian in the US is subject to Somali laws.  I'm not going to pretend I'm a legal scholar or that I've studied the thousands and thousands of pages of case law related to that single snippet in the Amendment.  I'm just claiming that a layman's simple reading is inadequate to predict the SCOTUS decision.

 

From a pragmatic standpoint, I do believe that the US has to eliminate birthing tourism and anchor babies one way or another.  Whether by passing new laws or interpreting the Amendment reasonably relative to the much smaller world we now live in.  The situation is much too ripe for abuse and corruption as is.  

 

My simple reply is the questions asked by the court may be twofold:

 

What is the intent of her 14th amendment (or as the government will likely argue what it is NOT intended to do)

 

Is it viable to make such wholesale revisions to the accepted notion via Executive Order.

On 12/6/2025 at 12:24 PM, Emdog said:

"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.": First lines of the 14th Amendment to US Constitution. Nothing to debate. 

The amendment was added due to racist Southerners after Civil War arguing that as freed slaves were once property and not humans, that they couldn't be persons and have equal rights.

With blatant current racist admin and it's backers, they are trying same sort of white nationalist crap.

Just like the racist MAGAs are trying to undo it.

I'm staunchly against virtually everything trump wants to do with America... except this.

I believe that 'VOTING RIGHTS' should be given only to those who have worked to help the country, not just to those who were accidentally born on this side of the border.
Two years of active service, either Civil or Military, working to improve America, then you can vote in its elections.
All other benefits of birthright citizenship should still apply.

6 hours ago, FolkGuitar said:

I'm staunchly against virtually everything trump wants to do with America... except this.

I believe that 'VOTING RIGHTS' should be given only to those who have worked to help the country, not just to those who were accidentally born on this side of the border.
Two years of active service, either Civil or Military, working to improve America, then you can vote in its elections.
All other benefits of birthright citizenship should still apply.

Oh sure, let’s only let people vote after they’ve “helped the country.”
So, um, who decides that? A government committee? A vibes-based scoring system? Your cousin who thinks mowing his lawn is patriotic duty?

And what counts as “helping”? Teacher? Nurse? Caregiver? Or just “whatever the current government feels like”?

This plan turns voting rights into a permission slip handed out by whoever’s in power. What could go wrong?

10 hours ago, Galong said:

Oh sure, let’s only let people vote after they’ve “helped the country.”
So, um, who decides that? A government committee? A vibes-based scoring system? Your cousin who thinks mowing his lawn is patriotic duty?

And what counts as “helping”? Teacher? Nurse? Caregiver? Or just “whatever the current government feels like”?

This plan turns voting rights into a permission slip handed out by whoever’s in power. What could go wrong?

It appears you never served your country, or you would realize the 'who' of the decision.

You missed the part about having to actually 'work' to help America, either in Military or Civil Service. That is how it is decided.  It's not about what their individual jobs might be. No difference if their  job is as janitor or CEO.

Did they spend two years in service to America?

Tell us, please... How have YOU served the country that gives you your citizenship benefits?

20 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Agreed.  As I think you pointed out earlier, there was no such thing as organized birthing tours before jet travel.  Which is a quite different state of things compared to back in the 1860s when the Amendment was written.

 

The converse of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is that, as a US citizen, I'm subject to US law no matter where I go in the world.  Just as a Somalian in the US is subject to Somali laws.  I'm not going to pretend I'm a legal scholar or that I've studied the thousands and thousands of pages of case law related to that single snippet in the Amendment.  I'm just claiming that a layman's simple reading is inadequate to predict the SCOTUS decision.

 

From a pragmatic standpoint, I do believe that the US has to eliminate birthing tourism and anchor babies one way or another.  Whether by passing new laws or interpreting the Amendment reasonably relative to the much smaller world we now live in.  The situation is much too ripe for abuse and corruption as is.  

 

Then the constitution needs to be amened as it trumps executive orders.

52 minutes ago, The Old Bull said:

Then the constitution needs to be amened as it trumps executive orders.

So your are suggesting, on the birthright revision Executive Order, that when President Trump says:

 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

 

that hereby ordered isn't game, set, and match?

 

19 hours ago, FolkGuitar said:

I'm staunchly against virtually everything trump wants to do with America... except this.

I believe that 'VOTING RIGHTS' should be given only to those who have worked to help the country, not just to those who were accidentally born on this side of the border.
Two years of active service, either Civil or Military, working to improve America, then you can vote in its elections.
All other benefits of birthright citizenship should still apply.

What a load of tripe how do you feel about people who don’t pay their taxes?dodge the draft?rape women?embezzle from charity’s?betray the oath of office?disenfranchise 50% of our population?you say you don’t support trump nonsense you do,no doubt about it you just try to be sneaky about it.this disgusting attempt to disabuse people of their citizenship is evil and needs to be squashed.If they are worrying about pregnant women giving birth on a visa here perhaps be a bit more careful about the visa.Illeagles coming to work lousy jobs and pay taxes so what.

This is from the earlier hearings on the injunction to the Executive Order:

 

AI via Gemini:

 

Kavanaugh's Role in the Oral Arguments
During the May 15, 2025, oral arguments for the consolidated case Trump v. CASA, Inc., Justice Kavanaugh was a key voice among the conservative justices. 

Questioning Practicalities: Kavanaugh repeatedly pressed the government's solicitor general, D. John Sauer, on the practical implications and logistics of implementing the executive order without a nationwide injunction in place. He asked pointedly: "What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?". He seemed skeptical of the government's response that federal officials would "figure it out" within the order's 30-day "ramp-up" period.

 

 

12 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

This is from the earlier hearings on the injunction to the Executive Order:

 

AI via Gemini:

 

Kavanaugh's Role in the Oral Arguments
During the May 15, 2025, oral arguments for the consolidated case Trump v. CASA, Inc., Justice Kavanaugh was a key voice among the conservative justices. 

Questioning Practicalities: Kavanaugh repeatedly pressed the government's solicitor general, D. John Sauer, on the practical implications and logistics of implementing the executive order without a nationwide injunction in place. He asked pointedly: "What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?". He seemed skeptical of the government's response that federal officials would "figure it out" within the order's 30-day "ramp-up" period.

 

 

That would indicate a rejection based on practicality, not legal reasons. Which imo would be a bad reason to reject.

Trump is obviously correct on this. It's a loophole being exploited by illegals. 

 

Let's hope the supreme court reaches the correct decision in the best interests of the US and its people. 

It is not just Trump.

"On October 8, 2025, the Conservative Party of Canada announced a plan to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born to temporary residents."

New Proposal To End Birthright Citizenship For Temporary Residents In Canada

 

16 minutes ago, stevenl said:

That would indicate a rejection based on practicality, not legal reasons. Which imo would be a bad reason to reject.

From AI Gemini:

 

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a major case regarding President Trump's executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporarily-present parents, challenging the long-held interpretation of the 14th Amendment. 

 

Key Legal Questions for the Supreme Court:
Presidential Authority vs. 14th Amendment: Can an executive order override the plain language of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," with limited exceptions (like diplomats)?"

 

NB And the practicality of it relates to  what a President can do as to what is a Constitutional issue "Because I say so".

 

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". 

The debate is perhaps going to focus on different interpretations of the above words.

9 minutes ago, OneZero said:

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". 

The debate is perhaps going to focus on different interpretations of the above words.

 

AI Gemini on the Government's interpretation as per SG Sauer:

 

The argument asserts that being "subject to the complete and exclusive jurisdiction" of the U.S. means owing a full, sovereign allegiance, similar to that owed by citizens. Since unauthorized immigrants and temporary visitors may still owe allegiance to a foreign power, their children are arguably not "subject to the full jurisdiction" of the United States in the same way as children of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

24 minutes ago, OneZero said:

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". 

The debate is perhaps going to focus on different interpretations of the above words.

 

This is where the debate will likely focus.

 

I've done a bit of research and it seems that the approach the administration is taking is that illegals did not receive the consent of the American public to enter the country, so the illegals did not receive proper "jurisdiction". It's about consent being given and received.

 

The common understanding of "jurisdiction" would seem to imply that illegals are under the jurisdiction of the US because they can be prosecuted for breaking the law while in the US. Diplomats and invading armies, the standard exception to birthright citizenship, are not and are specifically designated. Illegals have not been, so I'm thinking the administration's stance is a stretch, but with this Supreme Court, who knows?

 

Then there's the issue of whether an executive order can over-ride established constitutional precedent.

The birthright 'merit' case is just getting started. A ruling can come any time now on the tariff case. President Trump has stated that any ruling against him could/ will destroy the country's economy. So the question becomes: Who wants to cross Trump?

 

Which alludes to this from The Untouchables (1987)  David Mamet script:

 

Jim Malone: [stopping at a post office] Well, here we are.
Eliot Ness: What are we doing here?
Jim Malone: Liquor raid.
Eliot Ness: [looking at the police station across the street] Here?
Jim Malone: Mr. Ness, everybody knows where the booze is. The problem isn't finding it, the problem is who wants to cross Capone.

 

The U.S. immigration department, originally known as the Office of Immigration, was established in 1891 under the Immigration Act of 1891. 

This implies the Founding Fathers were illegal immigrants without evidence of their nationality. The first passports were issued in 1789.