The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause, affirming that virtually all individuals born within the United States are granted citizenship. The decision effectively rejects the ability to limit birthright citizenship based on the immigration status of parents.
The ruling stems from a debate over the interpretation of the clause, which states that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." Senator Jacob Howard, who authored the clause in 1866, based it on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which defined citizens as "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power." This definition, according to proponents of restricting birthright citizenship, excluded individuals whose parents were not citizens or legal residents.
The Supreme Court's decision voids executive actions and proposals aimed at barring citizenship for children born to parents who are in the U.S. unlawfully or on temporary visas. Such actions could have affected an estimated 250,000 babies annually. Proponents of birthright citizenship argue the clause was intended to ensure citizenship for freed slaves and their descendants following the Civil War, not to address issues like "birth tourism."
Justice Clarence Thomas, in a dissenting opinion, argued that the court's ruling "devalues" American citizenship. Conversely, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion, which supported the majority, referenced contemporary language to describe the framers' intent. Public opinion on the matter is divided, with some polls indicating a majority favor stricter immigration enforcement, including the deportation of undocumented immigrants.
Following the ruling, legislative and executive actions are being considered to potentially alter birthright citizenship. Senator Rand Paul previously proposed an amendment to redefine "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" to apply only to children of U.S. citizens, permanent residents, or those serving in the military. Such a change would align U.S. policy with that of approximately 170 other countries.
Additionally, proposals like Representative Andy Ogles' "Anchors Away Act" have been introduced, seeking to prohibit pregnant foreign nationals from entering the U.S. on the basis that their intent is to secure birthright citizenship for their children. Precedents exist for denying entry to individuals believed to be seeking entry for birth tourism. The Justice Department has also signaled an intent to prosecute unlawful birth-tourism schemes.
Former President Trump has suggested support for legislation that would make circumstances for birthright citizenship more restrictive, emphasizing measures to limit illegal border crossings. The core of the debate centers on the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and its application in contemporary immigration contexts.