The Supreme Court of the United States is once again hearing arguments on a pivotal issue: whether President Donald Trump can legally deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or on a temporary basis. This case, scheduled for Wednesday, originates from an executive order signed by Trump on the first day of his second term, which aimed to end birthright citizenship—a long-standing principle guaranteeing citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil.
What Is Birthright Citizenship?
Birthright citizenship is rooted in the legal doctrine of jus soli, or "right of soil." In the United States, this right was constitutionally enshrined after the Civil War, primarily to ensure that former slaves would be recognized as citizens. The 14th Amendment explicitly states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
In the late 1800s, this principle was legally expanded to include the children of immigrants, as demonstrated by the landmark case of Wong Kim Ark. Born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, Ark sued after being denied reentry following overseas travel. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the amendment grants citizenship to everyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' legal status. Today, exceptions are minimal, such as for children born to foreign diplomats.
Global Perspectives on Birthright Citizenship
Globally, birthright citizenship is relatively rare. Only about three dozen countries, predominantly in the Americas, guarantee citizenship to children born on their territory. Most nations follow the principle of jus sanguinis, or "right of blood," where a child's citizenship is based on that of their parents, irrespective of birthplace.
For instance, none of the 27 European Union member states grant automatic, unconditional citizenship to children born to foreign citizens on their soil. This pattern is similar across much of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, highlighting the uniqueness of the U.S. approach.
Mixed Approaches in Other Countries
Some countries adopt a hybrid system, using factors like parenthood, residency, and ethnicity to determine citizenship. Australia, for example, allowed birthright citizenship until 1986, after which children could only become citizens if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or permanent resident.
Conversely, Germany liberalized its laws in 2024. Previously, citizenship by birth required at least one German parent. Now, children born in Germany to non-German parents are automatically granted citizenship if one parent has been legally residing in the country for over five years with unlimited residency status. The government cited studies showing improved education prospects for children with migration backgrounds as a key reason for this change.
The Trump Administration's Legal Argument
Supporters of restricting birthright citizenship in the U.S. focus on a specific phrase in the 14th Amendment: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They argue that this language allows the government to deny citizenship to children born to women in the country illegally. However, a series of judges have ruled against the administration, and the executive order has been repeatedly suspended by lower courts.
Wednesday's case originated in New Hampshire, where a U.S. district judge ruled that the order "likely violates" both the Constitution and federal law, setting the stage for this Supreme Court showdown. The outcome could have profound implications for immigration policy and constitutional interpretation in the United States.
