Why the Supreme Court’s birthright-citizenship decision may depend on the meaning of “domicile”

SCOTUSblog ^ | Apr 20, 2026 | César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

The future of President Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to limit access to birthright citizenship is now positioned for a final decision from the Supreme Court. Questioning from the justices...suggests an icy reception for the Justice Department’s claim that the constitutional guarantee of citizenship turns on an innovative interpretation of the legal concept known as “domicile.”

***

Trump’s executive order...claims that the 14th Amendment grants U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States depending on the citizenship or immigration status of their parents. The amendment’s citizenship clause provides that a person becomes a citizen “of the United States and the state wherein they reside” if they are born in the United States and are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

To successfully defend the constitutionality of Trump’s order, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer will have to convince a majority of justices on three fronts. First, that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means a person is “domiciled” in the United States. Second, that domicile should be interpreted to require legal permission to live in the United States indefinitely as a permanent resident, the most privileged form of immigration status, rather than temporarily or altogether without the federal government’s permission. Third, that children born in the United States acquire citizenship at birth only if their mother was domiciled in the country at the time of the child’s birth.

The text of the citizenship clause does not use the term domicile, but the Trump administration argues that it is implied. Sauer, who is the federal government’s lead attorney before the Supreme Court, argued that “reside,” which does appear in the citizenship clause (in terms of state citizenship), “means domicile in the Constitution.” For children to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth, the constitutional provision “presupposes domicile,” he told the justices.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Your teachers taught you that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction therof” did not apply to indians because given their jurisdiction deriving from tribal councils, they were considered foreign agents?

That is truly unique.

[Fury]

Why go through the rigors of the naturalization process when one could simply pop out citizens without it?

The question is important to be asked within the framework of Gypsies born in the US being considered US citizens, as discussed in debate for the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and also debate surrounding the 14th Amendment (specifically the Citizenship Clause). Gypsies were specifically mentioned in both debates.

As noted before, Gypsies had no permanent domicile. They had no allegiance to the US. During the debates in 1866 it was acknowledged that children born to Gypsies would be US citizens. That needs to be squared against the naturalization process that existed at the time.

So, a work in progress. But not to AJ Scalia - enacted text was the important consideration, legislative intent was like pulling on a ball of yarn.

[mass55th]

"Your teachers taught you that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction therof” did not apply to indians because given their jurisdiction deriving from tribal councils, they were considered foreign agents?"

I never heard any of that from any of my teachers or instructors in grammar school, high school, and college.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"I never heard any of that from any of my teachers or instructors."

Then you and I are the same and also Grok is 100% correct.

I was indoctrinated, and you were indoctrinated - they did not teach me this either. Honest worthwhile teachers would have included this. Schools removed it because they had an agenda.

And just so its clear, this does not reflect badly on you personally, you and I are victims. Victims of the schools.

[combat_boots]

On no planet is this a good idea pic.twitter.com/XiTNSPadJR— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) April 23, 2026

[mass55th]

"Then you and I are the same and also Grok is 100% correct."

I don't use AI for searches. "I was indoctrinated, and you were indoctrinated - they did not teach me this either. Honest worthwhile teachers would have included this."

First of all, I'm going on 79. I don't remember much of what was taught me in the 50's and 60's, but I'll agree with you if you'll stop bothering me with your personal opinions about the education I received.

You're only a victim if you allow yourself to be. People can only do to you what you let them get away with. I don't look at myself as a victim, because God gave me a brain, I can read, comprehend what I read, analyze what I read, and come to my own conclusion on issues. I know how to do research to learn things, and I don't do that by using the internet. I don't watch any news programming on any platform. Stopped watching all network news shows, even Fox News in 2008 when Obama was elected, so I'm not brain washed by people who read selective news off of a teleprompter, that they think we need to know.