The Supreme Court on Dec. 5 agreed to review the long-simmering controversy over birthright citizenship. It will likely hand down a ruling next summer.
In January, President Donald Trump issued an executive order removing the recognition of citizenship for the U.S.-born children of both immigrants here illegally and visitors here only temporarily. The new rule is not retroactive. This change in long-standing U.S. policy sparked a wave of litigation culminating in Trump v. Washington, an appeal by Trump to remove the injunction put in place by federal courts.
When the justices weigh the arguments, they will focus on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, known as 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.”
Both sides agree that to be granted birthright citizenship under the Constitution, a child must be born inside U.S. borders and the parents must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. However, each side will give a very different interpretation of what the second requirement means. Who falls under “the jurisdiction” of the United States in this context?
As a close observer of the court, Professor of American Civics Morgan Marietta anticipates a divided outcome grounded in strong arguments from each side. Read more at The Conversation.
UT is a member of The Conversation, an independent source for news articles and informed analysis written by the academic community and edited by journalists for the general public. Through this partnership, we seek to provide a better understanding of the important work of our researchers. Read more of our articles published by The Conversation on the UT News page.
—
MEDIA CONTACT:
Stacy Estep (865-974-8304, sestep3@utk.edu)
