The Supreme Court’s decision to review the Trump administration’s effort to revive Executive Order 14160 has placed one of the most established constitutional protections — birthright citizenship — under the national spotlight.
Supporters of the order portray it as a long-overdue fix to what they call an overly permissive citizenship system. But from a constitutional and historical standpoint, the path is unmistakably clear: no president has the authority to rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment with an executive signature.
The Constitution outlines exactly how an amendment can be changed — and presidential action is not part of that mechanism. As Justice Samuel Chase noted all the way back in 1798, “the President has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.”
That principle remains central to this debate.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Text and Intent
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, declares:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
The language is purposely broad. It was crafted to erase the impact of the infamous 1857 Dred Scott ruling, which denied citizenship to Black Americans. The Amendment was designed to ensure that no group living on American soil could be classified as a permanent underclass.
The principle behind birthright citizenship — jus soli (citizenship by birthplace) — was well established in English common law and adopted by early American states. Congress later reinforced the Amendment’s guarantees through legislation in 1940 and 1952.
For more than 150 years, administrations of both parties have treated birthright citizenship as a constitutional rule, not a presidential policy choice.
Wong Kim Ark: The Case That Settled the Question
The administration’s argument hinges on a narrow interpretation of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
But the Supreme Court has already rejected that theory — definitively.
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment enshrined the common-law rule of jus soli. The only exceptions to automatic citizenship are narrow:
- children of foreign diplomats
- children born to occupying enemy forces
- certain individuals not subject to American law
Immigration status — whether undocumented or on a temporary visa — has never been among the exceptions.
That’s because undocumented immigrants are subject to U.S. law: they can be taxed, arrested, prosecuted, and deported. As Harvard Law scholar Gerald Neuman put it, the administration’s interpretation is not merely wrong — it is “either a crazy theory or a dishonest interpretation of the Constitution.”
Why Executive Order 14160 Is Constitutionally Flawed
The order attempts to condition birthright citizenship on the legal status of a child’s parents — something only a constitutional amendment could change.
Even if applied only to future births, the issue remains the same:
The executive branch cannot redefine constitutional membership.
The Amendment was designed to prevent citizenship from becoming a political tool wielded by changing administrations. Allowing a president to unilaterally alter it would collapse the separation of powers and undermine the stability of constitutional guarantees.
Federal courts recognized this immediately. A district court blocked the order shortly after its release, citing its clear conflict with constitutional text and precedent.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming review will determine not only who qualifies as an American citizen, but whether the president can rewrite a constitutional promise that has held firm for over a century.
