Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship on constitutional grounds : NPR
By: Nina Totenberg (NPR)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
June 30, 202610:38 AM ET
Nina Totenberg
The U.S. Supreme Court Drew Angerer/Getty Images hide caption
toggle caption Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Listen to NPR's live special coverage of the decision
Loading...
In a sharp rebuke to President Trump, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution guarantees automatic birthright citizenship to virtually all children born in the United States.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court's 6-3 opinion.
The decision firmly rejected the executive order that Trump issued on the first day of his second term. It sought to bar citizenship for babies born in the U.S. to parents who either entered the country illegally or who are living and working here legally with temporary visas. The executive order never went into effect because every lower court judge who reviewed it concluded, in the words of one judge, that it was "blatantly unconstitutional."
Trump has long maintained that the Constitution does not guarantee birthright citizenship. But as Chief Justice Roberts observed, the men who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution after the Civil War defined citizenship in broad terms on purpose, rejecting the views of those who wanted to limit citizenship. The resulting language of the amendment says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Trump maintained that the provision was meant to apply only to former slaves, but "wasn't meant for the entire world to occupy the United States." That interpretation, however, has not been embraced by the courts or the legal norms of the country for 160 years. Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts' opinion for the court pointed to the court's landmark ruling well over a century ago in the 1898 case of Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese immigrants. Back then, no documentation was required for immigrants entering the United States, and his parents ran a business in San Francisco until they ultimately returned to China. In 1895, their son visited his family in there, but was denied re-entry upon his return to the U.S., on the grounds that he was not a citizen. He challenged that denial and won in the Supreme Court.
By a 6-to-2 vote, the justices interpreted the words, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," to mean that all children born in the U.S. were automatically granted citizenship — with three limited exceptions, only one of which exists today — for the children of foreign diplomats.
The decision in the Wong Kim Ark case was so widely accepted that even in periods of great hostility to immigrants, the notion of birthright citizenship remained untouchable. So much so that in World War II, when Japanese citizens were held as enemy aliens in detention camps in the United States, their newborn children were automatically granted American citizenship because they were born on U.S. soil. In addition, Congress subsequently codified that legal understanding.
The ACLU's Cecillia Wang, herself a birthright citizen born to Chinese parents, argued the birthright case in April before the Supreme Court. As she put it, the men who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment deliberately chose to confer automatic citizenship on the child, not the parent, the idea being that "in America we do not punish children for the sins of their fathers, but instead we wipe the slate clean. When you're born in this country, we're all American, all the same."
Dissenting from Tuesday's decision were Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito.
This is a developing story and will be updated
- Supreme Court
- birthright citizenship
Tags
Who is online
105 visitors
Not unexpected.
I do not attempt to predict this SCotUS, but I am pleased to see that they held true to the CotUS and precedent this time.
They would have had an extremely difficult time ruling otherwise.
SCOTUS: "Yes we know it was written in the Constitution in plain English and specifically applied it to any person, but we don't think they meant what they said so we are reversing it. Now, you have to be born in America AND own a Trump phone."
most of the leonard leo appointees just recently have realized that they will probably outlive trump and their US marshal protection.
They violated the CotUS with their immunity decision.
The SCotUS No longer has moral standing. They gave that up when they gave Trump a get out of jail free card. This whole idea of the "Unitary Executive" is simply nonsense, along with supply side economics and the idea that it is possible to balance budgets by cutting taxes.
Not to mention their Roe v Wade decision. Ignoring decades of court decisions.
lol.
Not surprising that this was the best retort you could muster; I stated a fact.
I was concerned that the ORANGE MONSTER, child RAPIST, might pull this one off. Thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts!
Yep, the TRUMP PHONE!
"Ain't that a SHAME"!
Well we knew this was happening because the court wasn’t surrounded by protective fencing.
ha ha!
Alito makes the common sense argument against birth right citizenship:
now imagine a adversary with basic common foresight realizes it can essentially control elections by sending a few hundred thousand citizens to purple states to give birth and waiting 18 years. Take the kids back home vote by absentee ballot and our adversaries would then have functional control of our elections form comparative pennies.
Thats what many of us said when Alito was confirmed.
Of course Alito sides with Trump. Of course you side with Trump.
While theoretically possible, an 18+ year initiative involving hundreds of thousands of people only to influence the election in razor-thin areas is unlikely. It is more likely to try to influence the election with cyber attacks, major donations (imagine if Musk decided to work with a foreign government), etc.
Regardless, birthright citizenship changes require an amendment. Alito making an argument as to why he thinks the CotUS should be amended is fine. Him merely deciding to change the CotUS is NOT!
Bottom line, even though the SCotUS has improperly changed the CotUS before (e.g. presidential immunity), they do NOT have the authority to do so. Trump's proposed change requires an amendment.
Some live some fantasy driven lives
Of course Alito sides with Trump. Of course you side with Trump.
very telling you deride and dismiss an argument in favor of protecting American security as “siding with trump.”
almost Freudian.
trump is, of course, irrelevant to this debate. He’s out of office in a matter of months. This decision, in contrast. Will have repercussions for as long as the republic it exists. But tds makes everything about trump. Believing that something is bad because trump supports it is the ultimate symptom of tds.
A sovereign country can’t survive in the modern world where anyone in an interconnected world can make their kids American by hopping on a plane. It’s asinine and a perversion of the intent behind the 14th,
Regardless, birthright citizenship changes require an amendment.
nope. As Thomas shows at exhaustive length, it just requires giving the 14th amendment the meaning it was understood to have when it was passed..
That's because that argument has nothing to do with protecting American security. Claiming birthright citizenship is some sort of security threat to our nation is just stupid and reeks of xenophobia.
lol. The connection between citizenship and the security of the state has been understood for thousands of years, basically as long as the concept of citizenship has existed.[✘]
The reality is that it is siding with Trump. Don't like it? Don't do it.
Trump brought this case! (And we are stuck with him for a matter of years.)
Emotive nonsense. The 14th Amendment has been in place for 157 years. This decision was to NOT change what is in place.
Wrong. Don't be ridiculous. Changing the CotUS requires an Amendment.
The reality is that it is siding with Trump. Don't like it? Don't do it
i don’t suffer from TDS. So whether trump supports something or not is irrelevant to me. Believing trump’s opinion on an issue determines its merits is incredibly illogical.
Trump brought this case
so what? That has nothing to do with it merits.
Changing the CotUS requires an Amendment.
correct. Now that the court erroneously interpreted its plain meaning and because conservatives aren’t going to pack the court like progressives would, an amendment is theoretically the only realistic path forward. But of course, since America doesn’t have the ability to decide who its own citizens are, a democratic process is impossible in practice as birth right citizenship corrupts the process.
You complained that I mentioned Trump. Trump brought the case.
This court has stuck with a meaning that has been in place, firmly, since United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
Wrong. “Deranged” is imagining that people support birthright citizenship because of some animus toward Trump.
The understanding of birthright citizenship, as delivered today by the Court, reflects the overwhelming consensus of the legal community ever since the 14th Amendment was ratified. And if you read the opinion, you will see that it has roots in English common law that predate even that.
This had nothing whatsoever to do with Trump, except that his own selfishness, bigotry, and ignorance forced the matter into court.
Well, then perhaps you should call them and let them know your legal and constitutional bona fides and clearly, they'll be forced to recognize you as an impartial expert constitutional scholar with far more insight, education and experience and they'll be shamed into correcting their erroneous interpretations.
“Deranged” is imagining that people support birthright citizenship because of some animus toward Trump.
pay attention. That was litterally the argument he led with.
community ever since the 14th Amendment was ratified. And if you read the opinion, you will see that it has roots in English common law that predate even that.
by all means, read Thomas’s dissent. The idea that Indians born on American soil are not constitutional citizens but aliens who aren’t domiciled here, are, is absurd. The Indian exception destroys the notion that birthright citizenship applies to anyone born on American soil.
This had nothing whatsoever to do with Trump
why didn’t you address that to the person who made him a topic?
You could actually read the opinions and decide for yourself who has the better argument,[✘]
Oh, I did. Well before I replied to your comment, and my comment stands. I don't claim to be a constitutional scholar, but I agree with the majority that " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" includes anyone born on US soil. Just because some bigots can't see past their fear and anger doesn't mean I'm going to interpret 'jurisdiction' any differently than the basic common understanding which is on what soil did the birth happen.
If the parents, the doctors, the responding EMT's or the cab driver on the side of the road helping deliver all have to abide by US laws, then that child was born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
Of course, if those parents are NOT subject to US laws at the time of the birth, meaning they are foreign diplomats with diplomatic immunity and are not subject to our laws, then the child would not be a US citizen.
But I'm sure some conservative who fancies themselves a constitutional scholar even though they have never even read the constitution themselves will tell me how wrong I am because they heard all about it from their reliable rightwing conservative media source that also told them Trump won the 2020 election and they'll have evidence any day now.
It is not. If you are referring to TiG, he made no such argument. You brought up TDS.
You can have an opinion, but it is not supported by facts or law. Indian reservations, though they lie within the borders of the United States, are legally sovereign territory. And so before Congress acted, they were generally considered to not be US citizens, even under the 14th Amendment.
I responded to the words you wrote. I am not surprised you don’t wish to see them subjected to scrutiny. If I wanted to reply to someone else’s words, I would have replied to their post, not yours.
My opening note expressed the expectation that you would side with Trump (Trump, as you should know, brought this to the SCotUS).
My argument @4.2 was clearly stated in the context of a quote from your post @4.
Quote from you @4:
My argument @4.2:
You chose to try to spin my opening observation rather than thoughtfully comment on or attempt to rebut the argument ⇡ I made.
Try again. This time, deal with the argument I made.
And now imagine that rightwing conservatives were actually concerned with some mystery foreign opponent 18 years in the future planning some long impossible to control 'invasion of the voter snatchers' plot on some sort of mass scale which is why they oppose birthright citizenship instead of simply being massive xenophobes. But then again, that's a little too farfetched for anyone with more than half a brain, but it could be a pretty funny premise for a comedy show. We'll call it "Jee Hawd!!".
You don’t have to tell me again that long term thinking, or dealing with second order consequences is something most progressives can’t fathom.
There is nothing in the "imagine a adversary with basic common foresight realizes it can essentially control elections by sending a few hundred thousand citizens to purple states to give birth and waiting 18 years" "and our adversaries would then have functional control of our elections" that resembles thinking. Perhaps an implausible B movie plot, but nothing more. I'm as fearful of what you're describing as I am of sharks invading in tornados.
It is a highly unlikely scenario. That this is Alito's strongest argument speaks to the weakness of his position.
And guarantee that those 18 year olds are going to vote as wanted? Even getting them to vote is iffy
Lol. Chinese bllionaires are already doing it, trying to have hundreds of American children.
the idea that a state with resources wouldn’t do it at scale is common sense.[✘]
Why do you imagine they’d be the ones actually voting?
Well, many of these folk believe there is some secret cabal of global elites that run the world called the "Deep State" and Hillary Clinton is the chairman of the board.
That could have been the sequel to "Deep Impact" where Morgan Freeman and Téa Leoni find out the Asteroid was summoned here by a secret cabal of trillionaires to start the human race over with Elon Musk as the prime genetic donor... "Deep Impact 2: The Deep State".
Those damn bllionaires! Hundreds of Chinese children voting 20 years from now all with one Manchurian brain! Mwahahaahah! Their plan was foolproof! And Old Chinese man Jenkins would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't have been for those pesky kids!". /s
or another contender...
In rightwing conservative towns they'll label this under "Horror".
The Chinese have elections????
But they're told who to vote for don't they?
I felt there were strong arguments for and against maintaining the birthright citizenship based on territorial jurisdiction. Since territorial jurisdiction has been upheld it is high time to apply that precedent to other US policies.
Now it is time for the US to stop recognizing dual citizenship. Citizenship in another country has no standing in the territorial jurisdiction of the US. And Constitutional rights only apply to citizens inside the territorial jurisdiction of the US. Leave the territorial jurisdiction of the US at your own risk.
Now it is time for the US to stop recognizing dual citizenship
that’s a good idea
While I believe there to be zero risk of our elections somehow being swayed by continuing to allow dual citizenship, I have always questioned the idea of claiming allegiance to more than one nation.
I know, the agnostic atheist is quoting scripture. But clearly, we atheists view the bible as written by ancient humans, and there's nothing that says ancient humans can't reveal some insight, wisdom or truth.
I agree that national elections won't be swayed. But local elections are a different matter. That's still a significant problem unless we totally Federalize everything and eliminate the right of communities to govern themselves.
No. That is not democracy.
Even local elections seem a stretch. How many dual citizens would it take to sway even a local election unless your town had fewer than 100 residents? I mean, it's miles from plausible.
further proof that most of maga have zero grasp of mathematics ...
I'm going to be lazy and just copy & paste the AI overview:
That's not exactly insignificant, is it? New York City's population is 36% foreign born. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani holds dual citizenship as a naturalized citizen of the US and a birthright citizen of Uganda.
I was referring to the premise of dual citizenship being used in an organized way to manipulate elections, not that in general we have a lot of people from many different places that have dual citizenship. Might there be a small community where you have maybe some Haitian refugees that settle down and are granted citizenship at some point and vote for things they want in the community? Of course, that's how America has always accepted its immigrant populations that tend to collect in certain spaces. That's why we have place's like 'Little Italy's and 'China towns' and other ethnic identified areas where large numbers of a specific culture are living. Does that mean that these local cities and towns are being controlled by foreign governments? I just don't buy it, it's too hard to keep that kind of strict control over enough people to be able to effect election results. Might the people elect someone that they feel represents them more where they work and live? Of course, that's what every other American has always done, and that's really what the xenophobes fear. A competing culture being elected to represent them and their culture becoming a minority in their own backyard. It's the very definition of xenophobia.
Do we really want to put these ethnic communities under a white thumb and tell them no you can't vote?
... and maga wonders why the majority of minorities vote against them.
Oh, they know "why". It's because they hate America!!!!
Then why do these ethnic groups tend to form distinct communities within cities?
Hasn't the Democratic Party sought out those small communities to create coalitions? Isn't that why the Democratic Party fractures over so many issues? Isn't that why the Democratic Party is no longer a 'big tent' party?
The data points to the fact that those ethnic communities can become large. The Somali population in Minnesota now influences politics in two counties.
Unless a political party dedicates itself to maintaining ethnic identity, promotes airing grievances, and promotes a diversity that is de facto segregation by identity.
Why should there be competing cultures in the US? Are we a nation of foreigners? Are we merely a collection of ethnic identities? Are we nothing more than a coalition?
um....yeah. Most of you can only date back your ancestors for the last 100 years. So yeah. We all came from somewhere
I can trace back one of my ancestors on my mother's side back to the Revolutionary War. My great grandfather was the family genealogist. For a guy who was adopted as a baby he was pretty detailed about the whole thing. Personally I don't give a shit...
I've got relatives in the oldest cemeteries in new england that arrived here in 1670.
My ancestors go back before the Revolutionary War. Not that I'm bragging because my ancestors came here to escape repression in Europe. So they were poor. And never got rich
that's impressive
one great grandmother and one grandmother were immigrants, that arrived in NYC shortly after 1900, from italy and eastern europe.
it was my grandfather's first project on his new computer 25+ years ago. intimidated by my grandmother's leather bound volume of genealogy dating back a few centuries, he printed out his family tree for his 10 grandchildren and presented them to us. my cousin and I both noted that we'd never be joining any aryan nation organizations with some of the surnames listed. grampa didn't take that very well and then later blurted out some family history, that as an anti-semite, he was a bit reluctant to share.
I thought it was hilarious, him, not so much. then again, since he was a WWII navy veteran of the pacific theater, I was always urging him to buy japanese made vehicles whenever he would purchase a new car. I always recommended mitsubishi's.
personally, I don't give a shit either. I'm an american that will preserve, protect, and defend the constitution and this country. any other types of labels after that are meaningless to me ...
all's fair in love, war, and comedy ...
I got my genealogy from doing a DNA test from Ancestry. They send me links and updates on ancestors based on my name and other research other DNA related members have found.
I do not believe these ethnic groups that have formed are voting with any foreign countries objectives in mind. I don't think Italian voters in Little Italy are voting for some Italian government objectives, nor is China town or the Armenian areas or Haitian or any other ethnic group locales. They are voting for their personal needs in their communities where they live which is what all Americans have always done ever since they or their ancestors got off the boat.
Yes, they have, because these are Americans that deserve representation and have shared objectives and desires for their families, towns, cities and States.
It is still a big tent party, far bigger than the Republican party which has become a party of one issue, pleasing Donald Trump. And yes, it does lead to some friction or 'fractures' at times where the main party is at odds with local party politics and the emergence of certain wings of the party like the Democratic socialists. While the main party leaders understand what the Democratic socialists and some of these ethnic and minority groups really want which is really no different than the rest of us, safe schools, safe streets, good job opportunities, access to education and fair treatment under the law, but the names and associations of "socialist" or "communist" tend to harm the overall party image due to their opponents being so monumentally ignorant of what is meant by those using those terms.
Again, I'm not saying that ethnic minorities don't vote for their own interests, they do, and that can at times conflict with the white Christian male patriarchy that has run things in America for a long time. But frankly, I don't give a fuck about whether the white male Christian patriarchy apple cart gets upset. These minority ethnic groups have been forced to band together to get their needs met because American society has, for the most part, been run by the white male Christian patriarchy up until the 1970's and only then did we start to see more women joining the legislature and workforce and a women's rights and minority rights taken seriously after the voting rights act and civil rights act were passed.
So yes, for a long time the majority in most places were white Christians and they got to pick and choose their representatives and for a very long time there were no other legislators other than white male Christians. And now that times have changed, and some ethnic minority groups got together to get collective representation and elect someone who looks like them and will think about their needs when making laws, who do have that starts screaming to high heaven about not letting ethnic groups get together because they might change an election result? The white male Christians of course, who have been doing it for 250 fucking years.
But again, this is NOT some foreign plot to take over America as has been suggested by some. That would just be silly.
Like white Christians did for the first 250 years? All I'm saying is that when confronted by the actual, on the book's segregation, complaining about potential minority ethnic groups gaining a foothold in a city or town where they can have their voices heard is NOT "de facto segregation by identity".
We have always had competing cultures, even among white Christians, in America. It's why we had the Civil War. And while we are more than a coalition, we are States with their own Governors and there is a reason the founders supported States rights and the will of those governed. We are a melting pot, but that doesn't mean that all immigrants are supposed to melt down their cultures, foods, language and ethnicity into some homogonous plastic American Cheese whiz so that they make nice for all the crackers.
I am 17th generation. My first native born ancestor was John Gore (1638-1674) - Find a Grave Memorial
Fuck your competing cultures.
How about coexisting cultures? Melding Cultures?
Some people today are soooooo sensitive that they feel cultural influences that do not arise from "their" culture are bad.
This cultural purity test is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. Immigrants are wonderful people for the most part. Let them in and prosper. This current bent to kick everyone out will surely bite us right in our junk.
The America would have better off if southern confederate culture had coexisted with yankee culture. Bold argument from you. Or American culture should just coexist with those that burn widows.…
[deleted][✘]
I did not say any of that, did I?
No.
You did.
Your inability to separate right from wrong in no way influences my ability to do the same.
It is not everything that another culture does is good, but you would have it that agreement on one aspect equals agreement on all aspects.. I reject that implicitly.
I see there is no room for nuance in your world.
.
Impossible, absurd, doomsday scenarios are a terrible legal argument.
ALITO:
Or, should I say, "A-lete-toes", 'cause like T-Diddy Rump Roast, your feet, like his booty, both smell like SHAT.
Trump is the THREAT! Dress that issue you bought off an ignoramus, butt wipper for the Orange Rump Roaster.
Seems pretty clear to me.
It’s nice to see that every once in a while, you can get the right answer to an easy question.
Unfortunately, Trump can't get anything right!
He's an accomplished grifter. You have to credit him with that.
At some point though, you have to start blaming the people still getting scammed that are metaphorically texting back to the same scam text as if they aren't still dealing with having to change credit cards from the last time they got scammed.
Kavanaugh did not get it right. Alito did not get it right. Justice Thomas did not get it right.
Out of the three I would say that Kavanaugh's opinion is the most disturbing because it opened a door in the, "we can change it with legislation."
‘Out of the three I would say that Kavanaugh's opinion is the most disturbing because it opened a door in the, "we can change it with legislation."’
As it should have been done in the first place
The 14th Amendment cannot be changed by legislation; it requires an Amendment.
Kavanaugh believes (I suppose) that Trump's EO did not violate the 14th but rather that it violated §1401(a):
I disagree with Kavanaugh. The language of the 14th is sufficiently clear. If we want it to be more restrictive, then that requires a constitutional Amendment.