Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship Precedent

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decision to uphold birthright citizenship precedent could have implications for federal and state policies, including those related to immigration and social services, which may affect communities across West Virginia.

---

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court on June 30, 2026, affirmed that children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent residents are nonetheless citizens under the 14th Amendment. This decision, in *Trump v. Barbara*, upheld the precedent set in the 1898 case of *United States v. Wong Kim Ark*. The 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause states, "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." In *Trump v. Barbara*, Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion for five justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Brett Kavanaugh provided a sixth vote, basing his concurrence on statutory interpretation rather than constitutional grounds. Roberts' opinion drew parallels to Justice Horace Gray's reasoning in *Wong Kim Ark*, citing textual analysis, common law, Reconstruction-era debates, and historical practice. Roberts wrote, "Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today." Kavanaugh agreed the executive order lacked legal standing, citing the Immigration and Nationality Act. He noted that when Congress re-enacted federal law after *Wong Kim Ark*, it adopted the Court's construction of the citizenship clause, including its established exceptions. Kavanaugh suggested Congress could potentially amend the statute to add exceptions for children of temporarily present individuals. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Thomas argued that *Wong Kim Ark* emphasized the permanent domicile of Wong's parents and did not explicitly resolve the status of children born to temporary visitors or undocumented individuals. He asserted that domicile should be central to the determination of citizenship. Alito also focused on political allegiance, stating that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 suggested the citizenship clause did not extend to all individuals born in the U.S. who remained subjects of a foreign power. Gorsuch wrote separately, acknowledging the possibility that undocumented individuals could establish domicile, potentially making their children birthright citizens, but he reserved a definitive opinion on that specific scenario. The *Wong Kim Ark* case originated in 1895 when Wong Kim Ark, a cook born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese immigrant parents, returned to the city after visiting family in China. Customs officials denied him entry, arguing that his parents, being subjects of the Chinese emperor, rendered him ineligible for U.S. citizenship despite his birth in the country. This challenge to his citizenship was part of a broader federal effort to test the interpretation of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Wong's parents were ineligible for naturalization under federal law at the time. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 further restricted Chinese laborers from entering the U.S. Wong's legal defense was supported by the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, also known as the Chinese Six Companies. After months of detention on steamships, a federal judge ordered Wong's release in January 1896, declaring him a citizen. The government appealed. In March 1898, the Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, sided with Wong Kim Ark. Justice Gray's majority opinion referenced English common law, which generally grants citizenship to nearly everyone born within a sovereign's territory. The Court found only narrow exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats or enemy forces. Chief Justice Melville Fuller authored the dissent, joined by Justice John Marshall Harlan. Fuller contended that applying feudal English law to an American republic was inappropriate. He argued that American naturalization law, which required renunciation of former sovereigns, and statutes granting citizenship to children born abroad to American fathers, indicated a system where citizenship followed parentage, not birthplace. The dissent also suggested that children of Chinese laborers, whom they described as an "unassimilable population," should not become citizens by birth. Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, Wong Kim Ark faced further challenges to his citizenship. In October 1901, U.S. officials arrested him in El Paso, Texas, under the Chinese Exclusion Act when he attempted to re-enter the country. Four months later, authorities acknowledged his Supreme Court-affirmed citizenship and dismissed the case. Wong eventually returned to China in 1931 and did not return to the U.S. Following the *Trump v. Barbara* decision, the administration issued new orders in August 2026 targeting "birth tourism." These orders expanded categories of foreign officials whose children would be excluded from citizenship and denied birthright citizenship to children of enemy aliens. The orders also eliminated birthright citizenship for individuals whose parents engaged in "commercial transactions" to secure such citizenship. On September 2, a federal judge temporarily blocked portions of this policy, citing the *Barbara* ruling.