Can Trump rewrite birthright citizenship? The Supreme Court’s moment of truth has arrived

TLDR:

• The Constitution uses “citizen” 11 times but never once defines the word
• President Trump’s Inauguration Day executive order challenges more than a century of settled law on birthright citizenship
• The Supreme Court hears oral arguments Wednesday on whether children born to illegal immigrants qualify as citizens
• The legal battle hinges on five words in the 14th Amendment: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

The U.S. Constitution uses the word “citizen” 11 times. It never defines it.

That oversight has sparked legal debate since 1866 — and on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will be asked to settle it once and for all, with President Trump’s Inauguration Day executive order hanging in the balance.

Mr. Trump’s order directs federal agencies not to recognize citizenship for children born in the U.S. if their mother is here illegally or on a short-term visa and their father is neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident.

Standing squarely in his way: a 126-year-old Supreme Court ruling and a 1940 act of Congress — both of which appear to enshrine automatic birthright citizenship as settled law.

In the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision, the court ruled 6-2 that a child born to Chinese parents legally present in the U.S. was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. That ruling has never been overturned.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that children of illegal immigrants don’t qualify because their parents don’t owe “the requisite allegiance” to the United States — essentially reviving the losing dissent from 1898.

“There is no dispute that when people come here from a foreign country, they are subject to our laws, and their children, if born here, are U.S. citizens,” countered Cody Wofsy of the ACLU.

The court’s ruling could reshape American life — or leave the question to Congress.

Read more:

• After 160 years, Supreme Court to settle birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants