Birthright Citizenship: Defining Citizenship Under the Constitution

By Calee Mitchelson — November 3, 2025

Introduction

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court resolved a fundamental ruling that still echoes today regarding constitutional citizenship. The Court addressed whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause—which provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”—confers citizenship on all persons born within the United States, regardless of their parents’ nationality or immigration status. In a 6-2 ruling, the Court upheld the question in the affirmative, thereby affirming birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Background

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, the legal status of citizenship remained unsettled. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), the Court held that enslaved persons and their descendants could not be United States citizens under the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment overturned this decision by providing that “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.”

In Wong Kim Ark, the Court confronted the scope of the Citizenship Clause. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco, California, to parents of Chinese descent. Although born in the United States, he faced a contested claim to citizenship because Chinese immigrants were, at the time, subject to exclusionary federal statutes that limited naturalization, most notably the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. After a trip to China, federal customs officials denied him reentry to the United States on the ground that he was not a U.S. citizen. Detained aboard steamships near San Francisco for several months, he filed a habeas corpus petition and sued to establish his citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The case arose during an era of pronounced anti-Asian sentiment and restrictive immigration policy directed at Asian migrants. The Court’s decision therefore had consequences not only for Wong Kim Ark’s individual status but also for the constitutional definition of birthright citizenship for subsequent generations.

The Court’s Reasoning

Writing for the majority, Justice Horace Gray concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause embodied the common-law principle of jus soli, under which birth within a nation’s territory ordinarily confers citizenship. Justice Gray explained that “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country.”

The Court rejected the government's contention that Wong owed exclusive allegiance to China and was therefore outside the protection of United States law. The opinion clarified that persons born in the United States—except for the children of foreign diplomats or enemy occupiers—are qualified for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. As a prevailing precedent, the ruling firmly established birthright citizenship as a constitutional guarantee that could not be undone by statute or executive order. United States v. Wong Kim Ark has since served as the definitive authority on the meaning of the Citizenship Clause.

Modern Implications of Birthright Citizenship

Upon taking office on January 20, 2025, the President issued Executive Order No. 14160, declaring that children born in the U.S. to undocumented or non-lawful permanent resident parents would not automatically be given U.S. citizenship. The order prompted immediate litigation and debate concerning the scope and future of birthright citizenship.

In Trump v. CASA, Inc., No. 24A884 (2025), by a 6-3 vote, the Court held that federal courts lack equitable authority to issue universal injunctions—court orders that bar enforcement of federal policies across the country—unless the requested relief is directly tied to the specific injuries of the named plaintiff. The Court limited its decision to avoid extending a plaintiff’s individual claims to parties or jurisdictions not before the Court. It expressly declined to resolve whether the executive order violated the Fourteenth Amendment, focusing instead on the procedural questions of the permissible scope of injunctive relief under which a court may prohibit specific actions to prevent irreparable harm.

Consequently, the doctrine of birthright citizenship remains legally grounded by precedent, though its modern application is now shaped by procedural and jurisdictional complexities. The decision leaves unresolved questions regarding the potential limits of the Citizenship Clause and the circumstances under which children born in the United States may be subject to differing legal or regulatory frameworks based on state law or their parents' nationality status.

Conclusion

From Wong Kim Ark to Trump v. CASA, Inc., the concept of birthright citizenship has oscillated between a settled constitutional guarantee and a contested policy. While the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and Wong Kim Ark remain central to the doctrine, recent litigation has highlighted procedural routes that could affect the practical implementation of that doctrine. As debates persist over jurisdiction, immigration, and the definition of American citizenship, the scope of the right to reside in the United States is no longer as clear as previously understood. The key question is not just whether birthright citizenship exists in principle, but by what legal mechanisms—through litigation, statutory interpretation, and administrative policy—it will be shaped, a question that will continue to engage scholars and courts alike.

Bibliography