{"id":246590,"date":"2026-04-01T11:51:12","date_gmt":"2026-04-01T11:51:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/246590\/"},"modified":"2026-04-01T11:51:12","modified_gmt":"2026-04-01T11:51:12","slug":"supreme-court-weighs-trumps-bid-to-end-birthright-citizenship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/246590\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court weighs Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

WASHINGTON \u00a0\u2014\u00a0The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear President Trump\u2019s claim that he has the power to revise the Constitution and to end birthright citizenship<\/a> for babies born in this country to parents who were here unlawfully or temporarily. <\/p>\n

Trump proposed this potentially far-reaching change in an executive order. It has been blocked by judges across the country and has never been in effect. <\/p>\n

His lawyers contend they seek to correct a 160-year misunderstanding about the Constitution\u2019s promise that \u201call persons born\u201d in this country are deemed to be citizens. <\/p>\n

The president\u2019s executive order \u201crestores the original meaning of the citizenship clause<\/a>\u201d and would deny \u201con a prospective basis only\u201d citizenship to the \u201cchildren of temporarily present aliens and illegal aliens,\u201d Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his appeal.<\/p>\n

But the first hurdle for Trump and his lawyers may concern the powers of the president.<\/a> <\/p>\n

In February, the court blocked Trump\u2019s sweeping worldwide tariffs<\/a> on the grounds the Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to impose import taxes. <\/p>\n

By comparison, the president has even less power to set the rules for U.S. citizenship. The Constitution gives Congress the power to \u201cestablish a uniform rule of naturalization<\/a>.\u201d <\/p>\n

After the Civil War, Congress adopted a civil rights act in 1866<\/a> that said \u201call persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, including Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States … of every race and color.\u201d<\/p>\n

To make sure that rule stood over time, it was added to the Constitution in the 14th Amendment. Its opening line says: \u201cAll 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 1898, a conservative Supreme Court upheld that rule and affirmed the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark.<\/a> He was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,\u201d the court said. \u201cIn clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 1952, when Congress revised the immigration laws, it added the same provision without controversy. Lawmakers set multiple rules for deciding disputes over American parents who live abroad, but the first rule was simple and undisputed. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,\u201d the law said. <\/p>\n

Critics say Trump\u2019s plan could replace a clear and simple rule with a confusing and complicated one. States would have to look into the history and legal status of a newborn\u2019s parents to decide whether they met the new qualifications. <\/p>\n

Until now, a valid birth certificate had been sufficient to establish a person\u2019s U.S. citizenship. <\/p>\n

Last week, Trump was urging Senate Republicans to pass a new election law<\/a> that would require millions of Americans to present a birth certificate as proof of their citizenship if they register to vote or move to a new state. <\/p>\n

\u201cProving citizenship to vote is a no brainer,\u201d the White House said. <\/p>\n

This week, however, Trump\u2019s lawyers are urging the court to rule that their birth in this country is not proof of their citizenship. <\/p>\n

There is a \u201clogical inconsistency\u201d here,\u201d said Eliza Sweren-Becker, a voting rights expert at the Brennan Center. <\/p>\n

In the legal battle now before the court, the key disputed phrase is \u201csubject to the jurisdiction.\u201d That has been understood to mean that people within the United States are subject to the laws here, except for foreign diplomats and, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations. <\/p>\n

But Sauer contends it excludes newborns who are \u201cnot completely subject to the United States\u2019 political jurisdiction\u201d because their parents are in this country unlawfully. <\/p>\n

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union called this a \u201cradical rewriting\u201d of the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about the parents of a newborn child. <\/p>\n

If upheld, this order could apply to \u201ctens of thousands of children born every month, \u201c they said, \u201cdevastating families around the country.\u201d But worse yet, they said, the outcome \u201cwould cast a shadow over the citizenship of millions upon millions of Americans, going back generations.\u201d<\/p>\n

Some legal experts predict the court may rule narrowly and reject Trump\u2019s executive order because it conflicts with federal immigration laws. Such a ruling would be a defeat for Trump, but it could allow Congress in the future to adopt new provisions, including a limit for expectant mothers who enter this country to give birth. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"WASHINGTON \u00a0\u2014\u00a0The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear President Trump\u2019s claim that he has the power to revise…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":246591,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[3333,47642,1765,1752,27304,7363,3622,48,52,51,1429,47,50,49,7087,7656,4840,3020,2214,1519,435],"class_list":["post-246590","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-los-angeles","tag-birth","tag-birthright-citizenship","tag-citizen","tag-congress","tag-constitution","tag-country","tag-court","tag-la","tag-la-headlines","tag-la-news","tag-lawyer","tag-los-angeles","tag-los-angeles-headlines","tag-los-angeles-news","tag-parent","tag-person","tag-power","tag-president-trump","tag-supreme-court","tag-trump","tag-united-states"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246590","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=246590"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246590\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/246591"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246590"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246590"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246590"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}