Whether U.S. President Donald Trump will succeed in his attempt to eliminate "birthright citizenship," under which a child born in the United States automatically acquires U.S. citizenship, is drawing public attention.
On the 1st (local time), the U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments to determine the legality of the executive order banning birthright citizenship. The order aims to restrict the automatic acquisition of citizenship solely because the children of undocumented immigrants and some short-term foreign visitors are born in the United States, and lawsuits were filed after President Donald Trump signed it in January, immediately after taking office.
The lawsuit is seen as a landmark case that could overturn the very definition of "American." If birthright citizenship is restricted, at least 200,000 children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States each year could be stripped of citizenship. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a final decision between late June and early July.
An unusual scene unfolded as President Trump personally appeared at the arguments. It is unprecedented for a sitting president to attend Supreme Court arguments, and he left during remarks by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which opposes the order. Upon returning to the White House, he posted on Truth Social, calling the United States "the only foolish country that allows birthright citizenship."
The core issue in the case is how to interpret the 14th Amendment. The provision defines U.S. citizens as "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It was included in the Constitution in 1868, shortly after the Civil War, and has been cited for more than a century as the basis for birthright citizenship.
Trump argues that the historical background of the amendment at the time should be considered. The provision was created to grant citizenship to the children of Black slaves who were brought to the United States by force, and, he says, foreign parents who want their children to become U.S. citizens and undocumented immigrants are abusing the law.
After the order was signed, immigrant communities in the United States expressed strong opposition, and 22 states filed constitutional lawsuits. Lower courts have also ruled that the order is "clearly unconstitutional."
At the hearing, John Sauer, the Justice Department's principal deputy solicitor general representing the government, cited the 1898 Wong Kim Ark precedent and presented the concept of "domicile" as the executive order's key basis. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents and was recognized as a U.S. citizen, and, given that the word "domicile" appears repeatedly in that ruling, the argument is that birthright citizenship can be recognized only for children of those who are ▲settled in the United States and ▲lawful permanent residents.
However, the justices repeatedly questioned the government's position. Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Elena Kagan noted that at the time of the 14th Amendment's adoption, "no discussion mentioned parents or settlement." Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed a logical gap by asking, "What about a baby born in the United States and abandoned immediately after birth?" Chief Justice John Roberts dismissed the government's view, saying, "The world may have changed, but the Constitution is the same."
Even so, they posed sharp questions to the ACLU, which rejects the domicile concept. Justice Kagan asked ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang, "Why do you think the word domicile was repeated 20 times in the decision?" Chief Justice Roberts noted, "It is concerning to reject a concept that is mentioned 20 times in the opinion."
The legal community is also seeing a growing debate over restricting birthright citizenship. John Eastman, a conservative legal scholar who first argued that the 14th Amendment does not mean granting citizenship to all children born in the United States, said, "Banning birthright citizenship is no longer the view of a radical minority," adding, "We will watch for the court's ruling."
Meanwhile, outside the courthouse, hundreds of citizens gathered to rally in support of maintaining birthright citizenship and to oppose the government's order. Norman Wong, a direct descendant of Wong Kim Ark, also took part in the protest, urging, "Please support the birthright citizenship system that guaranteed my ancestor's acquisition of U.S. citizenship."