Supreme Court Affirms Original Meaning of Birthright Citizenship

by Rod Williams, June, 30, 2026 - The Supreme Court has ruled as I expected, upholding birthright citizenship. The language is clear and unmistakable: "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." 

This has been adjudicated at least on three occasions, and the "subject to the Jurisdiction," which some were hanging their hats on to void birthright citizenship, had been settled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. I would have been shocked if the Supreme Court had voted to overturn the 14th Amendment's meaning. I am surprised that the court ruling was narrowly decided. 

Some argue that the 14th Amendment was meant solely to make citizens of former slaves. That is obviously not true. It was recognized that the 14th Amendment would make citizens of the children born in America to non-citizens at the time the Amendment was adopted.

For an understanding of the Court's ruling and the logic of that ruling, see the following. 

Supreme Court Affirms Original Meaning of Birthright Citizenship, Strikes Down Trump's Executive Order

by Damon Root, Reason, 6-30-2026 - When the 14th Amendment was introduced in the U.S. Senate in 1866, the first senator to speak out in opposition to it was a Pennsylvania Republican named Edgar Cowan. He objected in part because the Citizenship Clause of the proposed amendment would make American citizens out of the U.S.-born children of unwelcome immigrants. "Is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?" Cowan asked. And what about the "Gypsies" that he claimed were present in his own state? "These people live in the country and are born in the country. They infest society," he declared. Yet the 14th Amendment's grant of birthright citizenship would cover them, too. "If the mere fact of being born in the country confers that right," Cowan said, "then they will have it; and I think it will be mischievous."

Cowan's objections were answered by another Republican senator, John Conness of California. "I beg my honorable friend from Pennsylvania to give himself no further trouble on account of the Chinese in California or on the Pacific coast," Conness said. "We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others." (read it all)

Birthright Citizenship: The Majority Opinion

by Dan McLaughlin, National Revied, June 30, 2026 - Given the stakes and the extensive body of scholarship on the citizenship clause, the 26-page majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts in Trump v. Barbara is surprisingly brisk. On the question of the constitutional scope of birthright citizenship, only Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Roberts and the Court’s three liberals.

Subjects of the King

Roberts began with English common law, under which birth within the king’s dominions made one a subject owing duties of allegiance, but with exceptions for those born in “discrete areas within his kingdom that were temporarily outside his control. . . . And the same held true for ambassadors (and their families), who were considered—by a fiction of extraterritoriality—to remain on foreign soil and thus ‘under the ligeance’ of their home country.” This extended even to the children of “gypsies” (today known as Roma or Romani) who were legally banned from the country. (read more)

Top Stories