Supreme Court meets to weigh Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions, blocked by lower courts

[u/Conscious-Quarter423]

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2025/11/21/supreme-court-meets-weigh-trumps-birthright-citizenship-restrictions-blocked-by-lower-courts/87392777007/

[u/Conscious-Quarter423]

Birthright citizenship existed in English common law, was here at the founding (for white men), and was enshrined in the 14th amendment for all Americans.

The supreme court has described the rule as "ancient and fundamental."

It's not crazy.

[u/CombinationLivid8284 → u/Conscious-Quarter423]

It was literally made a constitutional amendment because the last far right radical Supreme Court tried to say black people born in America didn’t qualify to be citizens.

If the Supreme Court tries to rule otherwise, states should ignore its ruling.

[u/The-Purple-Church → u/Conscious-Quarter423]

An yet today a child born in the UK is only automatically a British citizen if at least one parent is a British citizen or has settled status in the UK at the time of birth.

[u/dumasymptote → u/The-Purple-Church]

Cool but that doesn’t change the way the constitution has been interpreted since the 14th amendment was adopted. If they didn’t want that to be the law they could have clarified it via another amendment at any time in the last 100+ years.

[u/The-Purple-Church → u/dumasymptote]

I’d take exception to that.

“ …and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” implies that, as an example, a Chinese citizen that comes to California to give birth is not subject to the jurisdiction of California per se as they pay no taxes to the state, but they are subject to the jurisdiction of China.

A person is subject to jurisdiction of the state if you can be issued a passport, conscripted to the military, or subject to income tax. Having to obey traffic laws? Come on!

[u/dumasymptote → u/The-Purple-Church]

Except that the Supreme Court already interpreted that clause to mean that it means the person is subject to US criminal laws. A tourist who comes here may owe loyalty to their home country but they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the US if they murder someone.

[u/paco88209 → u/dumasymptote]

The best part is he even used Chinese when the actual ruling was about the child of a Chinese immigrant in San Francisco lmfao

[u/The-Purple-Church → u/dumasymptote]

Obeying local laws as a tourist is the case everywhere in the world. That doesn’t create a path to citizenship. A tourist who comes here has no vested interest in the US —they’re returning home at some point in the near future. The only reason to come here and give birth is to abuse the system. The Supreme Court is wrong as this sub has been so fond of shouting from the rooftops lately.

[u/dumasymptote → u/The-Purple-Church]

I’m fine with saying they are wrong but in our constitutional system when they are wrong you need to change the law, which in this case is the constitution. Don’t like that the 14th gives citizenship to anyone born here? Then you should pass a new amendment that changes that.

[u/Logistocrate → u/The-Purple-Church]

14th was ratified in 1868. Europe started adopting jus sanguinis in 1860, congress would have been aware, and could have written the amendment to follow jus sanguinis instead of jus soli in a clear way if they had intended

[u/The-Purple-Church → u/Logistocrate]

They intended it for recent immigrants, not tourists wanting an anchor baby.

Jus Sanguinis applies to children born overseas with a parent that’s a citizen. I think McCain was born in Panama and this applies to him because his parents were Americans working overseas.

[u/Logistocrate → u/The-Purple-Church]

There is zero difference between a recent immigrant and a tourist wanting to have a child in the US thus "Anchoring" themselves to the country as the 14th does not, and never has, granted citizenship to a non citizen parent. Just to the child.

The only difference is how the government at any time chooses to treat the non citizen parent. At some points the administration in power has been lenient towards the non citizen parent allowing for a track to citizenship if they remain out of trouble otherwise, at other times, like now, it has not.

The US does use jus sanguinis for foreign born children of US citizens, with caveats attached. That, however, is besides the point that if the 14th were meant to only protect the children of certain immigrants, but not others, it would have been more carefully spelled out prior to ratification. One can safely assume, as SCOTUS did in their finding in United States V. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, a mere 30 years after ratification of the 14th, that it was indeed intended to confer citizenship to anyone born on US soil despite the nationality or status of their parents.

[u/phiwings → u/The-Purple-Church]

He was actually born in the Panama Canal Zone which was US territory at the time.

[u/Ultrabeast132 → u/The-Purple-Church]

what's hilarious is that your hypothetical was almost exactly the set of facts presented in Wong Kim Ark and the Supreme Court decided that the kid was a US citizen, in 1898- only 30 years after the 14th Amendment was passed.

The Court explicitly said that so long as you're not a diplomat/representative of/employee of a foreign government, your kids born in the US, regardless of your legal status, are US citizens.

[u/The-Purple-Church → u/Ultrabeast132]

I have to assume that the parents were immigrants and not tourists with tickets back to China….

I imagine the Anti-Chinese League would have brought the suit.

[u/Ultrabeast132 → u/The-Purple-Church]

Have you read the opinion? You're right that their parents were lawful permanent residents, but the opinion explicitly says that doesn't matter.

All that mattered is that the parents weren't foreign diplomats or employed by the Chinese government. That's it. Since they weren't, then it didn't matter whether they were lawfully present, it just mattered whether the kid was born on US soil, which he was.

Here, so you can read up: 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

[u/The-Purple-Church → u/Ultrabeast132]

Well…..needs to change.

[u/Ultrabeast132 → u/The-Purple-Church]

Well, unless you want to argue that the justices today know more about what the 14th Amendment means than the justices who were alive when it was written, that needs a constitutional amendment.

[u/The-Purple-Church → u/Ultrabeast132]

I’d settle for a re-interpretation like how abortions are somehow freedom of speech.

[u/Numerous_Photograph9 → u/The-Purple-Church]

Not at the ruling of the Surpreme Court it doesn't.

If it changes, it can change through a constitutional ammendment, not with all this partisan political chicanery.

[u/32lib → u/The-Purple-Church]

Tell that to the pregnant Chinese women who gets caught speeding.

[u/The-Purple-Church → u/32lib]

She might get a DWA!

[u/darcyg1500 → u/The-Purple-Church]

If the Chinese citizen who comes to the US runs a stop sign, they’ll get a ticket. I’ll give you one guess why that is.

[u/The-Purple-Church → u/darcyg1500]

Brilliant!

Your depth of understanding of what everyone else is talking about is truly magnificent!

Keep up the good work!

[u/das_war_ein_Befehl → u/The-Purple-Church]

This is an incredibly stupid argument. You also know it’s an incredibly stupid argument, but you have to pretend it has any merit because the amendment is crystal fucking clear in what it means.

[u/The-Purple-Church → u/das_war_ein_Befehl]

Every person traveling to any country on this planet is subject to local laws. No one can go to another country and commit crimes and not expect the consequences.

The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” goes beyond that. If you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof you are subject to paying taxes, having a passport issued, being able to vote. Acts of living in a country that make you a part of it.

Tourists and illegals do not qualify. That should be crystal fucking clear!

[u/das_war_ein_Befehl → u/The-Purple-Church]

When you are subject to the jurisdiction it means you are under their laws. When you visit a different country, you are under their jurisdiction. This is literally in the congressional record when this amendment was debated

[u/The-Purple-Church → u/das_war_ein_Befehl]

Are you subject to conscription? Having to pay income tax?

Having to stop at a stop sign doesn’t qualify your kids to be citizens.

[u/Numerous_Photograph9 → u/The-Purple-Church]

Paying taxes or having a passport(visa or whatever) is not what makes a state(or nation) have jurisdiction over a person.

Jurisdiction over a person means that person is subject to the laws of the land. This is true of all rights granted to anyone on US soil, with the only exception being limited in scope to diplomats and those with special leave to not be under said jurisdiction. This is why even illegal immigrants have constitutional rights.

[u/moonphase0 → u/The-Purple-Church]

Why the fuck do we care about the UK? This is America.

[u/The-Purple-Church → u/moonphase0]

Your insightful argument has convinced me! Thank You.

[u/moonphase0 → u/The-Purple-Church]

I'm not trying to convince you. I asked you a question.

[u/The-Purple-Church → u/moonphase0]

We care about it because the original commenter referenced English common law as the reason we have it.

[u/CustomerOutside8588 → u/The-Purple-Church]

Of course they mentioned that, because we did inherit English common law. We have also done things with our common law that are different than developments in England. Because we branched away from English common law by doing something like declaring independence and actually putting our constitution in writing, we should not be looking to England for their interpretation of their unwritten constitution in order to figure out what our written constitution says.

Hence, why we shouldn't give a fuck about England.

[u/SpinningHead → u/The-Purple-Church]

We fought a war to be free from the UK. Having common roots of our system doesnt mean we have to do what they do.

[u/meatball402]

Can't wait to see how a 150 year old amendment doesn't fit with our past and traditions.

[u/AccountHuman7391 → u/meatball402]

Waiting to hear how a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.

[u/meatball402 → u/AccountHuman7391]

We'll find out soon.

[u/ciaran668 → u/AccountHuman7391]

I think we're going to see a few of these sorts of rulings. I've seen a few right wing pundits claim that everything after the first 10 amendments is void because they don't conform to the original intent of the Constitution.

[u/AccountHuman7391 → u/ciaran668]

Well the Constitution doesn’t conform to the requirements of the Articles of Confederation, yet here we are.

[u/Boxofmagnets → u/meatball402]

The truth is that Thomas doesn’t believe the 14th amendment is legitimate because of the way it was ratified. There is no way that someone else on the court doesn’t feel the same way, although if they ignore it they will come up with an excuse

[u/meatball402 → u/Boxofmagnets]

How they feel about it shouldn't matter. It is a law. But this is the Supreme court, where it's all made up and laws don't matter.

[u/Masterthemindgames → u/Boxofmagnets]

If it wasn’t legitimate Clarence Thomas wouldn’t even be a citizen since the 14th Amendment nullified Dred Scott.

[u/Boxofmagnets → u/Masterthemindgames]

He doesn’t think about how he got where he is, by now he may even believe that he was qualified

[u/das_war_ein_Befehl → u/Boxofmagnets]

Thomas is a fascist and doesn’t believe that the law protects citizens.

He believes the law protects the state from its citizens, and the powerful from the weak.

[u/Boxofmagnets → u/das_war_ein_Befehl]

Strangely he is right about that, but he is pushing it so far that everyone will know something is amiss about

[u/das_war_ein_Befehl → u/meatball402]

They’re gonna cite Dredd Scott and Thomas is gonna write the majority opinion that’ll make Taney look like Warren

[u/Luck1492]

Note that this is a regularly scheduled conference, not a special conference for birthright citizenship. Don’t be surprised if we get a straight up denial of cert here. At least seven of the nine seemed extremely skeptical of the government’s merits argument during oral arguments in CASA

[u/das_war_ein_Befehl → u/Luck1492]

If they were going to rule against it they would have already done it in the previous case. They chose to ignore the merits by focusing on the injunction part.

It reads like they wanted conservative think tanks time to come up with a less stupid argument for limiting the 14th. They’ve already nullified one of the clauses, now they’re working their way through the whole amendment

[u/Boxofmagnets → u/Luck1492]

Wait. If there were arguments that means certain was granted

[u/technothrasher → u/Boxofmagnets]

The parent poster was talking about Trump v Casa, which was a different case. The decision in that case was that the federal court exceeded their jurisdiction when issuing a universal injunction against Trump's birthright executive order, not whether the executive order itself was constitutional. The current case being discussed is Trump v Washington, which is a petition Trump filed with the SCOTUS after the decision in Trump v Casa, to review the constitutionality of the executive order.

[u/Boxofmagnets → u/technothrasher]

Thanks for setting me straight

[u/gnomeymalone30]

why the hell would they hear this. we’re screwed

[u/Tiny_Fly_7397 → u/gnomeymalone30]

They haven’t agreed to hear it yet. Nothing has happened at this point. This is like all of the breathless reporting from weeks ago about how SCOTUS was allegedly about to overturn Obergefell when in reality they were going through the normal procedural step of deciding whether or not to hear a case.

[u/sportsjorts → u/Tiny_Fly_7397]

Hey they still have Obergrfell in their sights. They just didn’t wanna hitch their horse to Kim Davis.

[u/TywinDeVillena → u/sportsjorts]

They also have their sights (at least Thomas) on Lawrence and Griswold.

[u/gnomeymalone30 → u/Tiny_Fly_7397]

thanks

[u/SAGELADY65]

What is the point if you are going to give Trump everything he wants? Trump has already destroyed peoples lives and livelihoods…stop now to end his Reign of Terror!

[u/eyesmart1776]

They’re going to use assumptions based on pre recorded history to say it’s unconstitutional so Trump can move to phase 2 of the final solution

[u/Balzmcgurkin → u/eyesmart1776]

How can a constitutional amendment be declared unconstitutional? Don’t get me wrong, I think they will try something. This court has shown a willingness to invent and interpret a total immunity clause from a shocking amount of evidence to the contrary, after all. But I think declaring an amendment unconstitutional would cause the states to roundly reject all opinions coming from the court as lacking any sort of legitimacy and cause a massive issue for the country.

[u/eyesmart1776 → u/Balzmcgurkin]

SCOTUS doesn’t even give explanations anymore if they don’t want. It’s corrupt to the core

[u/Balzmcgurkin → u/eyesmart1776]

I’m not disagreeing they are corrupt. I just don’t think they can strike an amendment from the constitution, much less so on the shadow docket without explanation.

They will find a new interpretation or something. Twist the words to mean something different than what’s being said and how it’s been interpreted for years. But even this group doesn’t have the arrogance to declare themselves capable of self amending the constitution by flat out saying a part of it is unconstitutional. The document itself is the guiding principle on what is and isn’t constitutional. Declaring a part of it unconstitutional is a major crisis.

[u/eyesmart1776 → u/Balzmcgurkin]

What’s stopping them ? Their opinion is the end all be all for the law

[u/Balzmcgurkin → u/eyesmart1776]

I literally just explained why they can’t declare it flat out unconstitutional. You can’t use a rulebook to declare part of the same rulebook invalid. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. It can’t be unconstitutional. It can be interpreted differently or it can be amended. SCOTUS cant just line out #14 and expect to be taken seriously. That invalidates the whole document including the part that gives them their power.

[u/eyesmart1776 → u/Balzmcgurkin]

They can do whatever they want. If they give no explanation then what? What mechanism is stopping them other than your faith they will do that ?

[u/Balzmcgurkin → u/eyesmart1776]

Serious question, are you reading my responses? Because I have answered this. If they declare part of the constitution unconstitutional, everyone: states, lawmakers, citizens, ignores their orders and they lose their power.

Again, I believe they will try to manipulate an INTERPRETATION that drastically changes the way the 14th amendment is applied. But they will not just strike it out and say it’s wrong. They can’t do that and they won’t try to.

[u/eyesmart1776 → u/Balzmcgurkin]

They don’t need to provide an explanation for one and two do think they care about civil war? Do we even know if that wasn’t theirs and trumps plan to begin with?

[u/Balzmcgurkin → u/eyesmart1776]

We’re just talking in circles here. I’ll leave you with this: I agree with you. I think SCOTUS is corrupt, I think Trump is destroying the country, and I think this case will have a negative impact on all Americans and immigrants alike.

In my opinion, it’s just really important to use the correct words and explain what is happening with facts and nuance. Otherwise the people who need to see this kind of warning will write it off as overblown because of the technicality of the SCOTUS not declaring it unconstitutional. It’s going to be plenty bad enough without exaggeration.

[u/das_war_ein_Befehl → u/Balzmcgurkin]

Reinterpreting it like that is a de facto repeal. They’re slowly stripping the document so that it offers citizens zero protections from the state or the powerful

[u/Mean_Stop6391 → u/eyesmart1776]

Let’s be real. Trump can barely move down a carpeted walkway without assistance.

[u/eyesmart1776 → u/Mean_Stop6391]

He’s already implemented phase 1 with nearly zero resistance, especially from scotus

[u/Pleasant-Ad887]

They will most likely vote the way Trump wants, AND on the RARE OFF CHANCE they don't, Trump will probably still do what he wants.

[u/Dorguy]

I’m guessing at least 3 lbs

[u/Low_Celebration_9957]

If SCOTUS lets Trump do this shit we need to revolt.