The Nightly Build.
Unbiased

Does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” let the government deny birthright citizenship?

A divided Supreme Court struck down the president’s first order in June, and two narrower orders signed on August 6 have revived the fight over the same five words.

9 min read2026-08-11

The phrase that carries the whole dispute

Both sides in this fight read the same sentence and agree on every word of it. The Fourteenth Amendment opens Section 1 by naming who is born a citizen.

The Citizenship Clause
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”1 U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1

The disagreement is confined to five words in the middle: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” One reading takes jurisdiction to mean subjection to the country’s laws, so a child born on American soil and bound by American law is covered. The other takes it to mean owing the country complete allegiance, so a child born to parents who owe their loyalty to a foreign sovereign is not. The two senses are not the same claim, and the entire case turns on which one the Clause encodes.

The current fight began on January 20, 2025, when President Trump signed Executive Order 14160. It directed federal agencies to withhold citizenship documents from two sets of children born in the United States. The first set is children whose mother was unlawfully present and whose father was not a citizen or lawful permanent resident. The second is children whose mother was present lawfully but only temporarily, on a student, work, or tourist basis, with the same condition on the father.2 In Trump v. CASA the Supreme Court held that universal injunctions likely exceed what Congress has authorized federal courts to grant, and it expressly did not decide whether the order violates the Citizenship Clause.3 Nationwide protection then ran through a certified class instead of a universal injunction, after a New Hampshire district court granted a preliminary injunction and rejected the government’s reading of the Clause.4

On June 30, 2026, the Court reached the merits in Trump v. Barbara and held Executive Order 14160 facially unconstitutional: children born here to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are citizens at birth.5 The judgment striking the order was 6 to 3, but the constitutional holding drew only five votes. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment on statutory grounds alone, writing that the order contravenes 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) while stating that in his view it “does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.” On the constitutional question he stood with the three dissenters, so that question split 5 to 4.5

The allegiance reading lost. It ran against 128 years of United States v. Wong Kim Ark,6 against every lower court that reached the order,4 and against the Supreme Court that struck it.5 It survives as a minority reading pressed by three Justices and by credentialed scholars, not as the law.

The question is live again because the administration did not stop at Executive Order 14160. On August 6, 2026, President Trump signed two narrower orders, “Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” and a companion order on birth tourism.7 They target smaller categories the first order did not isolate: children of “alien enemy” or designated foreign-terrorist-organization parents, children of foreign officials and embassy staff, births arranged through commercial surrogacy or birth-tourism transactions, and certain territorial births.8 Reporting describes the birthright order as “narrower in scope than the previous one shot down by the Supreme Court.”9 As of August 11, 2026 no court has ruled on the August 6 orders and they are not yet in the Federal Register. The American Civil Liberties Union said any order that “tries to rewrite birthright citizenship will meet the same fate as the last one.”8

  1. Jan 20, 2025

    Executive Order 14160 is signed2

    Agencies are told to withhold citizenship documents from the children of unlawfully or temporarily present mothers, effective for births 30 days later.

  2. Jun 27, 2025

    Trump v. CASA limits universal injunctions3

    The Court curbs nationwide injunctions and leaves the Citizenship Clause question undecided.

  3. Jul 10, 2025

    A New Hampshire class is certified and the order enjoined4

    The district court certifies a nationwide class and rejects the government’s domicile reading of the Clause.

  4. Jun 30, 2026

    Trump v. Barbara strikes the order5

    The order falls: a 6-to-3 judgment, and a 5-to-4 holding on the constitutional question.

  5. Aug 6, 2026

    Two narrower orders are signed7

    A birthright order and a birth-tourism order target smaller categories. No court has yet ruled.

Jurisdiction means subject to the law

A child born on United States soil and bound by United States law is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” so the Clause makes that child a citizen and the executive cannot write exceptions into it.

This reading starts with what the Clause does and does not say. In Trump v. Barbara the majority took “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to refer to the Nation’s power to govern those within its territory, the authority the Court described in The Schooner Exchange. Anyone amenable to United States law is therefore covered. The words “mother,” “father,” “lawful,” and “temporary” appear nowhere in the Clause, and the majority found Wong Kim Ark’s reasoning impossible to square with a domicile requirement.5

The precedent it rests on is Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898. The Court there held that a child born in the United States to parents who were subjects of the Emperor of China, but who kept a permanent domicile and residence here, became a citizen at birth. The Fourteenth Amendment, the majority wrote, was “affirmative and declaratory” of the older common-law rule that birth on the soil confers citizenship. It read the exceptions narrowly: children of diplomats, of hostile occupiers, and, through Elk v. Wilkins, of tribes treated as separate political communities.6 On this account Elk is a carve-out for tribal sovereignty that Wong Kim Ark distinguished, not a rule about the children of aliens, and the New Hampshire court rejected the government’s attempt to turn the Clause on domicile.4

The drafting record is read the same way. Position holders point to Senator Jacob Howard’s statement, as the Barbara majority and pro-birthright scholars quote it, that the Clause would not include “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors.” On this reading the closing phrase restricts the exclusion to the families of diplomats rather than adding aliens as a separate excluded class. Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center argues that “both its proponents and opponents agreed that it recognizes and protects birthright citizenship for the children of aliens born on U.S. soil.”10 Amanda Frost of the University of Virginia School of Law puts the broader claim plainly, that “every method of constitutional interpretation supports” the universalist view, with the same narrow exceptions for diplomats, tribal members, and occupying armies.11

The parties who brought the challenge press the same text. A coalition of 24 state attorneys general, among them Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, called the order a violation of “our Constitution, federal statutes, and the rule that has governed our Nation for more than 150 years.”12 When the Court agreed and struck the order, the reporting recorded a majority that read the jurisdiction phrase broadly and rested on Wong Kim Ark.13

Chief Justice John Roberts, for the Court in Trump v. Barbara. Writing for the five-Justice majority that now states the controlling answer, he held that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present “are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.”5

Jurisdiction means owed allegiance

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means owing the United States complete allegiance, which the children of parents loyal to a foreign sovereign do not, so the political branches may decline to treat them as citizens at birth.

This reading begins with Elk v. Wilkins, decided in 1884. The Court there said the phrase means “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Elk, born owing allegiance to a tribe, was held not a citizen at birth even after he left it.14 For this position the allegiance gloss is the operative test. It reaches any child whose parents owe their allegiance elsewhere, not tribal members alone.

It reads Wong Kim Ark narrowly and treats its dissent as the better history. Chief Justice Fuller, joined by Justice Harlan, wrote that “the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power’ of the act,” the Civil Rights Act of 1866. A child owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign would fall outside the Clause. The dissent quotes Senator Lyman Trumbull’s gloss on the same phrase, “Not owing allegiance to anybody else; that is what it means.”6 The majority’s actual holding, on this view, ran only to the child of parents with a permanent domicile here, so the case of children born to unlawfully or temporarily present parents was never squarely decided.

The same drafting record is read against Position One. Senator Howard’s “foreigners, aliens” is taken as a separate excluded class rather than a lead-in to diplomats, and his call for “full and complete jurisdiction” is taken to exclude the children of foreign temporary visitors. In Trump v. Barbara, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, read the record that way and noted that the government denied such citizenship for decades. Justice Alito wrote that the Amendment “confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.” Under Wong Kim Ark’s narrow holding, he argued, the challenge to the order should fail, with any relief for those already born here left to Congress.5

Scholars press the point in their own terms. Ilan Wurman of the University of Minnesota School of Law argues that the United States lacked “complete municipal jurisdiction” over transient visitors, and that domicile “mattered” to Howard, Trumbull, and the secretaries of state who applied the Amendment. The traditional universalist view, he says, “ignores a lot of evidence.” Kurt Lash of the University of Richmond School of Law advances the same original-meaning reading. Their claim is not that the Court has endorsed them. It is that the as-applied question the order raises sat on thinner precedent than the majority allowed.11

Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting in Trump v. Barbara, joined by Justice Gorsuch. He would sustain much of the order, writing that “many potential applications of the President’s Order are consistent with the original public meaning of the Citizenship Clause.”5

Sources

  1. Cornell Legal Information Institute · U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment
  2. U.S. Government Publishing Office · Executive Order 14160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (Jan. 29, 2025)
  3. Supreme Court of the United States · Trump v. CASA, No. 24A884 (June 27, 2025)
  4. U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire · Barbara v. Trump, Order Granting Preliminary Injunction (July 10, 2025)
  5. Supreme Court of the United States · Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365 (June 30, 2026)
  6. Cornell Legal Information Institute · United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
  7. The White House · Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship (Aug. 6, 2026)
  8. NPR · Trump signs new orders curbing birthright citizenship (Aug. 6, 2026)
  9. SCOTUSblog · President Trump signs new birthright citizenship and birth tourism orders (Aug. 7, 2026)
  10. Constitutional Accountability Center · Truths and Untruths About the Constitutional Origins of Birthright Citizenship
  11. National Constitution Center · The Future of Birthright Citizenship, debate transcript (Apr. 29, 2025)
  12. Washington State Office of the Attorney General · 24 states issue joint statement as SCOTUS arguments begin
  13. SCOTUSblog · Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship (June 30, 2026)
  14. Cornell Legal Information Institute · Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)