You’ve probably heard some politician on the news claiming they can end birthright citizenship with a quick stroke of a pen. It sounds simple when they say it. They talk about "anchor babies" or "birth tourism," and it makes for a great soundbite during an election cycle. But honestly? The legal reality is a total beast. When you dig into the history of the Supreme Court and birthright citizenship, you find a legal fortress that’s been built brick by brick since the 1800s. It isn’t just about current immigration policy; it’s about the very definition of what makes someone an American.
The whole debate centers on a single sentence in the 14th Amendment. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." That’s it. That’s the whole ballgame. Or at least, it should be. The "subject to the jurisdiction" part is where the lawyers start screaming at each other. Some folks argue it means you owe total, exclusive political allegiance to the U.S., while others—and most judges—say it just means you have to follow U.S. laws while you’re here.
The Case That Settled It (Mostly)
Let’s talk about Wong Kim Ark. If you want to understand the Supreme Court and birthright citizenship, you have to know this guy. He was born in San Francisco in 1873. His parents were Chinese immigrants who were legally living in the U.S. but were barred by law from ever becoming citizens themselves because of the racist Chinese Exclusion Acts of that era. Wong went to China for a visit, came back, and the government told him, "Nope, you aren't a citizen."
He sued. The case went all the way up.
In 1898, the Supreme Court handed down United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Justice Horace Gray wrote the majority opinion. He basically looked at English common law—the stuff the Founders grew up with—and said that if you’re born on the soil, you’re a citizen. Period. It didn’t matter that his parents weren't citizens. The Court ruled that because Wong wasn't the child of a foreign diplomat or part of an invading army, he was "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. the moment he took his first breath in California.
It was a massive win for the concept of jus soli, or "right of the soil."
Why People Are Still Arguing About It
So, if Wong Kim Ark settled it, why is it still in the headlines in 2026? Well, some legal scholars, like John Eastman (who you might recognize from the January 6th investigations), argue that the Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn't apply to people who are in the country illegally. They argue that if a parent is here without permission, they aren't truly "subject to the jurisdiction" in a political sense. They’re just... here.
It's a fringe theory, but it has legs in certain political circles.
The counter-argument, which is held by the vast majority of constitutional experts like Laurence Tribe or the late Antonin Scalia (who was a strict originalist), is that "jurisdiction" is a geographical concept. If you can be arrested and tried in a U.S. court, you are under U.S. jurisdiction. It’s that simple. If a tourist or an undocumented immigrant commits a crime, we don’t say, "Oh, they aren't under our jurisdiction, let them go." We put them in jail. Therefore, their kids born here are citizens.
The "Consent" Theory
There's this idea floating around called "consensual citizenship." It suggests that citizenship is a contract. Both the person and the country have to agree. Under this logic, if the U.S. didn't "consent" to the parents being here, the contract is void. Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith wrote a famous book on this in the 80s called Citizenship Without Consent. It’s a dense read. They basically argued that the 14th Amendment was never meant to cover the children of people who broke the law to get here.
Most courts haven't bought this. They stick to the "soil" rule.
Could an Executive Order Change It?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Still no, but it would create a massive legal mess.
💡 You might also like: What Really Happened With Amendment 4: Why Florida’s Results Surprised Everyone
The Constitution sits at the top of the food chain. An Executive Order is way down at the bottom. A President can’t just "delete" a part of the 14th Amendment. To actually change birthright citizenship, you’d need a Constitutional Amendment, which requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate and ratification by 38 states. In today’s polarized climate? Good luck with that. You can't even get 50 people to agree on lunch.
However, a President could sign an order telling agencies to stop issuing Social Security cards or passports to these children. That would immediately be challenged. It would end up back at the Supreme Court and birthright citizenship would be on the chopping block again. Would the current conservative supermajority overturn Wong Kim Ark? Most legal analysts think it's unlikely because of stare decisis—the principle that courts should stick to their previous rulings. But after Roe v. Wade was overturned, "unlikely" doesn't mean "impossible" anymore.
Real-World Impact and Misconceptions
People often think the U.S. is the only country that does this. Not true. Canada does it. Most of Central and South America does it (Mexico, Brazil, Argentina). It’s actually quite common in the Western Hemisphere. Europe is different; most countries there use jus sanguinis, or "right of blood," where your citizenship depends on your parents' nationality.
There's also this myth that birthright citizenship is a "magnet" for illegal immigration. While it's a factor for some, most migration studies show that economic opportunity and escaping violence are much bigger drivers. People aren't usually trekking 2,000 miles just for a birth certificate; they’re doing it so they don't get killed or starve.
What to Watch For Next
If you're tracking this issue, keep an eye on lower court cases involving "derivative citizenship" or challenges to state-level benefits. Sometimes, states try to deny birth certificates to children of undocumented parents (Texas tried this a few years back). These smaller fights are often the "test cases" that lawyers use to try and get back in front of the Supreme Court.
✨ Don't miss: Beyond UFOs and the Unknown: Why Science is Finally Taking the Weird Seriously
Actionable Insights for Navigating the Debate
If you're following this for legal reasons, academic research, or just to be an informed voter, here’s how to cut through the noise:
- Read the 14th Amendment yourself. Don't rely on a talking head. Look at the text. It’s remarkably short and clear.
- Study United States v. Wong Kim Ark. This is the "Bible" of birthright citizenship law. If someone argues against birthright citizenship without mentioning this case, they haven't done their homework.
- Check the "Jurisdiction" argument. Whenever you hear the debate, listen for that word. If someone says "jurisdiction means loyalty," they are using the Schuck/Smith theory. If they say "jurisdiction means geography," they are following the established Supreme Court precedent.
- Distinguish between Statutory and Constitutional law. Congress can change naturalization laws (how you become a citizen later in life) but they cannot change birthright laws without an amendment.
- Monitor SCOTUS shadow docket orders. Sometimes the Court signals its thinking on immigration through emergency stays or small procedural rulings before a big case ever hits the main stage.
The Supreme Court and birthright citizenship relationship is a cornerstone of American identity. It’s what transformed the U.S. from a collection of ethnic enclaves into a nation where, at least legally, it doesn't matter where your parents came from. Changing that would be the biggest shift in American law since the Civil War. It’s not just a policy tweak; it’s a rewrite of the American DNA.