Donald Trump’s ongoing push to end birthright citizenship faces a significant legal obstacle rooted in a 126-year-old Supreme Court decision. The case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), is often cited by legal experts and critics as a major hurdle to his proposals. While the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly ruled on the modern question of birthright citizenship, the principles established in Wong Kim Ark remain a cornerstone of legal interpretation on the matter.
In Wong Kim Ark, the Court ruled that children born on U.S. soil, even to non-citizen parents, are granted U.S. citizenship. The case involved Wong, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were lawful permanent residents but not U.S. citizens. Despite the fact that his parents were not citizens, the Court affirmed that Wong was a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born in the country, citing the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States.
Legal experts argue that Trump’s proposal to end birthright citizenship would encounter significant legal resistance, particularly because of the precedent set by Wong Kim Ark. The ruling emphasized that the Fourteenth Amendment’s language ensures citizenship to all children born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The decision has not been significantly overturned or weakened by later Supreme Court cases, making it a critical legal reference point.
Trump’s supporters, however, argue that the Wong Kim Ark decision doesn’t apply to children born to parents who are unlawfully in the country. Some legal theorists, such as federal judge James C. Ho, have suggested that birthright citizenship should not extend to children born to what they term “invading aliens.” They argue that such cases are distinct from Wong Kim Ark, where the parents were lawful residents. This argument, however, faces scrutiny from scholars who point out that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to include all persons born in the United States, regardless of the legal status of their parents.
Despite these claims, legal experts remain skeptical of such an interpretation. They argue that characterizing immigrants as “invading armies” is a misunderstanding of U.S. law. The principle of birthright citizenship has been well-established, and the legal framework surrounding it is not easily altered. Further, legal scholars point out that children of immigrants, even those who enter illegally, are not exempt from U.S. jurisdiction and protection under the Constitution.
To achieve his goal, Trump would likely need to push for a constitutional amendment, which would require a significant shift in political and legal structures. A mere executive order, experts argue, would not suffice in overturning a well-established constitutional principle. Changing the Fourteenth Amendment would require broad support from both political branches of government and would likely provoke extensive litigation.
As scholars emphasize, the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship was a clear and deliberate decision by the framers of the Constitution. To override this provision, Trump would not only have to confront decades of legal precedent but also the historical intent of the nation’s founding documents.
