{"id":82292,"date":"2026-04-02T00:01:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-02T06:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.opinionpublica.tv\/portada\/?p=82292"},"modified":"2026-04-01T20:12:07","modified_gmt":"2026-04-02T02:12:07","slug":"born-american","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.opinionpublica.tv\/portada\/born-american\/","title":{"rendered":"Born American"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Born<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In a few hours the Supreme Court will hear arguments over President Trump\u2019s plan to limit birthright citizenship. The case stems from an executive order Trump issued on his first day back in the White House meant to nullify a longstanding rule that granted citizenship to babies born in the United States, even if their parents were not citizens or permanent residents. That order was swiftly challenged in court and blocked by lower courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now the Supreme Court will consider whether the order is constitutional \u2014 meaning, does it square with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That clause is the amendment\u2019s first sentence:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAll 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was adopted in 1868, to reverse part of the court\u2019s 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had held that Black people of African descent were not and could not become U.S. citizens. The language appears pretty clear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But mind this subclause of the clause carefully: \u201cand subject to the jurisdiction thereof.\u201d What those words mean will fuel the arguments of both the Trump administration and its challengers \u2014 lawyers representing children across the nation who would be affected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the administration<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For more than 125 years, courts have interpreted \u201csubject to the jurisdiction\u201d as meaning nearly everyone born on U.S. soil. (There\u2019s a narrow exception for the children of foreign diplomats and the children of enemy occupiers.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Trump view, though, is that children of undocumented immigrants aren\u2019t subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Why? Among other reasons, the revisionists say, it\u2019s because their parents don\u2019t owe allegiance to the U.S. but instead to the nations they left. Children of undocumented immigrants, they say, should thus be treated as we treat the diplomats\u2019 children \u2014 born on U.S. soil, but under the flag of a foreign nation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some conservative legal experts told The Times that the case might be closer to call than once thought. One of them said, \u201cWe had seen enough to convince us that this question was not open-and-shut, that conventional wisdom may not be correct and that the Trump E.O. has more going for it than people realized.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What to watch for<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opposing view is that birthright citizenship is a matter of settled law and has nothing to do with the parents of the children who receive it. There\u2019s no language about parents in the 14th Amendment. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 mentions them only in the context of citizen children born outside the U.S. Both the amendment and the law use the same language: Anyone \u201cborn in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,\u201d is a citizen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adam Liptak, our chief legal affairs correspondent, wrote about that recently: \u201cWhatever might have been the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, there is substantial evidence \u2014 in judicial decisions, legislative reports and executive practice \u2014 that Congress understood the 1952 law to guarantee birthright citizenship.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So yesterday I asked Adam what he\u2019ll be watching most closely. Here\u2019s what he told me:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\u2019ll know whether the administration has a prayer of prevailing based on the early questions from the ideological middle of the court \u2014 the chief justice and the three Trump appointees. If they pepper the administration\u2019s lawyer with skeptical questions, which seems likely, it will be a good bet that Trump\u2019s long-shot revisionist theory is doomed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If they treat the lawyer\u2019s arguments as presenting difficult problems of constitutional interpretation, the end of June, when the court issues the biggest decisions of the term, will be interesting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Sign up for The Docket, Adam\u2019s newsletter, which demystifies matters of law and justice.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A history of immigrants<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One last thing before court. As the justices prepared to hear this landmark case today, reporters for The Times took a close look at their family histories. In each, the reporters found newcomers to America \u2014 colonists, enslaved people and immigrants alike \u2014 who paved the way for a descendant to ascend to the highest court in the land.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThese nine men and women will now sit in judgment of citizenship for their fellow countrymen,\u201d they wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s a remarkable bit of journalism, built out of immigration and census records, ship manifests, biographies, memoirs and speeches related to the justices\u2019 families, well worth reading as we wait for the arguments to commence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n