Posted on 09/29/2025 12:46:03 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The Trump administration has filed a pair of petitions to the Supreme Court asking the justices to hear appeals on its birthright citizenship order, cases which could add to the growing list of questions related to President Donald Trump‘s actions that the high court will consider in its upcoming term.
The two petitions appeared on the Supreme Court’s public docket Monday, after being filed late Friday, and they urged the justices to take appeals in both cases, which were brought by Democrat-led states and a group of people who could be affected by Trump’s order.
The question presented to the high court in both petitions centers around the president’s January executive order claiming birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment does not include children born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally or on a temporary basis, such as on a visa. The order, which would not be retroactive, states that if one of the parents is a permanent resident or U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, then he or she would get citizenship at birth. The Supreme Court has been asked to determine if the executive order is lawful under the 14th Amendment.
“The issues in this petition are unquestionably cert-worthy,” the DOJ’s petition said, urging the high court to take up the case. “The government has a compelling interest in ensuring that American citizenship—the privilege that allows us to choose our political leaders—is granted only to those who are lawfully entitled to it.”
“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the President and his Administration in a manner that undermines our border security. Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands...”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Things have changed re: birthright citizenship since the last SC opinion, as its developed into an industry taking advantage of US. Common sense calls for and end to it. Court make-up is improved, too.
Similarly, in the related case of citizen-only census, it too has been abused.
If this court can’t fix either issue, perhaps one (or 2) more common-sensical judges on the court will end these injustices
Personally I jus don’t see Roberts wanting to touch this, and if he has to, he will do everything possible to make sure the ruling is a wishy washy one that preserves the status quo.
“birthright citizenship”
Argue from the wrong premise, the wrong selection of words, and you will always lose.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there a RIGHT to be a citizen.
I was PRIVILEGED to be born in the US. It is a PRIVILEGE to be a CITIZEN. It is a PRIVILEGE to be in the US.
I favor extending that PRIVILEGE more extensively than some on FR. But make no mistake. Nobody has a RIGHT to be in the US.
In my opinion illegal immigrants have RIGHTS, the RIGHT to Freedom of Speech, etc, The RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
But that is a totally separate issue from the fact that it is NOT A RIGHT, BUT A PRIVILEGE to be in the US.
This issue is way too important to be left to the courts.
Congress should by the branch making the decision.
Anyone who holds dual citizenship, anyone here on a nonimmigrant visa where they attested that they have a domicile in their home country that they have no intention of abandoning, or anyone in the United States illegally who is still subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, fails the "sole jurisdiction" test and cannot confer citizenship onto their children.
The citizenship of their children will be based on "domicile of origin," that is, the domicile of their parents (or other nation in the case of dual citizenship).
-PJ
“All that SCOTUS needs to do is interpret the 14th amendment clause that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof... means subject to the SOLE jurisdiction of the United States.”
____________________________________________________________
If you can be arrested and sent to prison in the United States, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
If you have a nonimmigration visa, you have to attest that you have a domicile in your home country that you have not abandoned and plan to return to. Taht means that you have a home address in your home country, you likely have a drivers license in your home country, and if you're here on a short-term tourist visa, you probably still have to pay taxes for the year that you were partially at home.
That means that you are still subject to the jurisdiction of your home country for some things while you are abroad in the United States. That means that you are subject to the jursidction of TWO nations, not SOLELY to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Just like if you were to go to England for a time, you are still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in that you still must file your income taxes while out of the country. That would make you subject to both the United States and Great Britain's jurisdictions while you are in England.
-PJ
“I said “sole” jurisdiction of the United States.”
____________________________________________________________
Perhaps you can point to the section of the Constitution or 14th Amendment that requires anyone to be under the “sole jurisdiction” of the US to be protected by our laws.
If crooks could avoid punishment for their US crimes by simply relinquishing their citizenship in the US, I’m sure most would do so.
-PJ
You are using a modern definition of jurisdiction. It has morphed from its original meaning when Sen Howard wrote the amendment.
The same thing happened with “well regulated “ when the founders wrote the Second Amendment.
EC
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.” — Sen. Jacob Howard (R-MI), who wrote and sponsored the amendment including “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The man who sponsored it literally said it didn’t apply to “persons born in the United States who are foreigner [or], aliens,” but somehow politicians and judges have decided they know better what the meaning is than the person who wrote and sponsored it, and who explained to us what it meant.
But his co-author Sen. Lyman Trumbull (R-IL) explained that “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ … What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” as its authors understood it, did NOT include:
Diplomatic immunity: Children of foreign ambassadors/ministers are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. because their parents have diplomatic immunity.
Tribal Indians: At the time, Native Americans living under tribal sovereignty were considered members of separate nations and not fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction (confirmed in Elk v. Wilkins, 1884).
Children of foreign nationals temporarily or illegally in the country: This is the controversial one today. The framers repeatedly stated during the debates that the clause would not grant citizenship to children of foreigners/aliens who owed allegiance to a foreign power.
Later legislation included Native Americans under the Fourteenth Amendment. No legislation has touched the other two categories.
The shift happened in 1898 with United States v. Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. 649). Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were legally resident but ineligible for naturalization under the Chinese Exclusion Act (they were permanent residents, not transient visitors or illegal entrants.) The Supreme Court (6–2) ruled that he was a citizen by birth.
The Court explicitly said it was not deciding the case of children born to aliens whose presence was illegal or temporary.
But here’s the key: The majority opinion largely brushed past the 1866–68 debates and the statements of Howard, Trumbull, etc., treating them as non-authoritative or inapplicable. IOW, the majority was rewriting the amendment.
Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided or at least does not control the illegal-alien context, because Wong’s parents were legal permanent residents and the authors of the amendment did not intend for the children of birth tourists or illegal aliens to be included.
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.