Posted on 04/20/2026 12:48:02 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
sadly you are right. The punt is the best we can hope for.
Congress has neutered itself.
While it is true that the 14th Amendment empowers congress to resolve this, the text is as perfectly clear and understandable as anything. Section 5 is only like 15 words long.
Congress will refuse to act. That is what should happen; Congress should act. But that is not what will happen.
CALM DOWN!
Please provide your opinion on the two words - “or naturalized” in the 14th Amendment.
Two pings in one day, you’re making me feel special my friend.
It’s alright. We as Americans used to know this well constructed phrase until the progressives indoctrinated us out of it.
If an American standing and living life in 1866 or 1870 knows what “subject to the jurisdiction therof” means but an American in 2026 does not, we have to question the role of progressive indoctrination.
How does indoctrination not enter the party? It must.
How did the 1870 American know it? He was taught it.
Were we taught it? Did our schools adequately teach us “subject to the jurisdiction therof”? They did not.
Yes and yes.
Correct.
........... on part of the 3 finger AI lady.
Uh, that would be anyone who is not born a citizen, but instead goes through the naturalization process at some point afterwards.
For all the reasons given by Scalia in various writings, I do not believe the statements of individual members of Congress are relevant to determining the correct interpretation of the Constitution. They may be slightly more important for legislation, but their value for Constitutional interpretation is minimal at best.
A British subject is subject to the jurisdiction of the British government.
Yes they are. But they also are subject to the jurisdiction of the American government if they are within the United States. The only exception is if they have diplomatic immunity.
Three. I guess you haven't noticed that other one yet. :)
I'm just pointing out to you that a lot of people think the 14th amendment is well intentioned, but badly executed.
Which it is.
And as for the progressives having taught us badly, the legal people will tell you all that matters is black letter law. Whatever it says, *THAT* is how they are going to interpret it.
So if the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" has changed over the years, they will simply use the understanding of the term that they currently have, blissfully unaware that it meant something different back then.
But even Senator Trumbull had to explain it back then, didn't he?
If it helps, here are more precise definitions of what you're trying to describe.
See my post that includes relevant definitions from Black's Law (sixth edition).
Residence
Place where one actually lives or has his home; a person's dwelling place or place of habitation;An abode; house where one's home is; a dwelling house.
Personal presence at some place of abode with no present intention of definite and early removal and with purpose to remain for undetermined period, not infrequently, but not necessarily combined with design to stay permanently.
Residence implies something more than mere physical presence and something less than domicile.
"Domicile" compared and distinguished
As "domicile" and "residence" are usually in the same place, they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are not identical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as in the city and country, but only one domicile.Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home.
Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile.
"Residence" is a place where someone stays habitually, but not permanently. A person can have more than one "residence" at a time.
-PJ
A blindingly idiotic argument on the Government’s part. “Domiciled” is not part of this. The 14th Amendment along with the very detailed intent of the men who wrote it is crystal clear. They explained quite well, the concept of “Subject to the Jurisdiction of”.
The government argument about domiciled, the ease of jet travel, etc was sophomoric. I almost wonder if they were trying to throw the case. The Justices were practically laughing at him...
“The understanding of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would seem to be the relevant point.”
And that was exhaustively explained, in writing, by the men who wrote the 14th. It is no mystery.
LOL!! If it is, then how did we get to where we are?
We didn’t give kids who were clearly born to illegal aliens automatic citizenship until the 1980s.
WKA included the idea that citizenship by birth required parents here “in amity” - in friendship - with the US government. Children of illegal aliens would OBVIOUSLY not be born citizens, according to the WKA ruling.
The definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was defined in 1795 within the framework of naturalization.
Chap. ⅩⅩ.—An Act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.
For carrying into complete effect, the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise:—
First. He shall have declared on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at the time, be a citizen or subject.
Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation, before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall he recorded by the clerk of the court.
Thirdly. The court admitting such alien, shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.
Fourthly. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.
Sec. 2. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, may be admitted to become a citizen, on his declaring on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and moreover on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and, where the alien applying for admission to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain, during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the act intituled “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
Approved, January 29, 1795.
The above was codified in federal law here: 8 USC §1448. Oath of renunciation and allegiance, as well as in the surrounding sections of Subchapter III of Part II of Chapter 12 of Title 8.
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
The fact that this exists within the context of naturalization should not cause it to be discarded as irrelevant to the 14th amendment "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" discussion. This proves that the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" pre-existed the 14th amendment by 73 years.
The 14th Amendment could not have been intended to grant birthright citizenship to the newborns of a class of people via less rigorous means than naturalization or naturalization and the gaining of citizenship will mean nothing.
-PJ
If they want to keep it they will wrestle around with words until they can justify their decision and that will depend on whether they want the Republic to survive.
If they want to stop the invasion they will just read what it says and issue the ruling.
Of course the could just set aside the stay on Trump's EO and avoid all the hassle. </s>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.