How have the Supreme Court's 14th Amendment decisions treated birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented parents?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Supreme Court’s long-running jurisprudence has historically treated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause as establishing broad birthright citizenship for most persons born on U.S. soil—a rule grounded in United States v. Wong Kim Ark and reinforced by later decisions that apply the Amendment’s protections to people regardless of immigration status [1] [2] [3]. Recent litigation over a 2025 executive order has not yet produced a definitive new holding on whether children of undocumented parents are excluded, but the Court has recently narrowed lower-court remedies while leaving the underlying constitutional question unresolved [4] [5].
1. How Wong Kim Ark cemented broad jus soli
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark the Court held that a man born in the United States to Chinese parents who were not diplomats was a U.S. citizen by virtue of the Citizenship Clause, endorsing the common‑law rule of jus soli and rejecting narrow interpretations that would limit birthright to particular classes of parents [1] [6]. The decision is frequently cited as the central precedent that treats birth in the United States, not parental legal status, as the primary basis for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment [2] [1].
2. Subsequent doctrine: Plyler and the Amendment’s broad protections
Later rulings, notably Plyler v. Doe, extended the Amendment’s protections in ways that undercut arguments distinguishing undocumented from documented immigrants; in Plyler the Court recognized that undocumented children are “people in any ordinary sense” and are entitled to certain Fourteenth Amendment protections, which scholars and advocacy groups cite to argue against excluding U.S.-born children of undocumented parents from citizenship [2] [3].
3. The contested clause: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
The decisive legal battleground has long been the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Opponents of expansive birthright citizenship argue that phrase excludes children of those “here illegally” or on temporary visas, claiming the framers intended jurisdiction to require mutual allegiance rather than mere physical presence [7] [8]. Advocates and many legal scholars counter that history, the text, and Wong Kim Ark show the clause was meant to secure citizenship for those born in the territory regardless of parental status, except for narrow exceptions like foreign diplomats and occupying armies [1] [7] [8].
4. The Supreme Court’s recent docket: procedure, not final constitutional text
In 2025 litigation over an executive order seeking to strip birthright citizenship from children of undocumented or temporarily present parents, the Supreme Court’s immediate rulings focused on procedural questions—most notably limiting lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions—rather than resolving whether the executive order violated the Citizenship Clause; the Court left the merits for later review [4] [9]. Lower courts that have reached the merits have uniformly found the order likely unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, but those merits rulings had not yet been finally decided by the high court as of the latest reporting [10] [3].
5. What the precedents mean for children of undocumented parents today
Taken together, the Supreme Court’s historic decisions signal that birthright citizenship has been interpreted expansively: birth on U.S. soil has long been treated as the primary determinant of citizenship, and the Court has applied Fourteenth Amendment protections broadly, including to noncitizens present in the country [1] [2] [3]. However, the current controversy shows that the question is not purely academic—administrations and litigants who favor restriction frame their case as a plausible re‑reading of “jurisdiction,” and the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling in the Trump-era cases will be the first definitive modern statement from the Court on whether children of undocumented parents remain covered [11] [8] [5].
6. Competing agendas and what to watch next
Legal scholars and civil‑rights groups warn that changing the established understanding would require either a clear Supreme Court re-interpretation or a constitutional amendment, and they emphasize administrative and statutory limits on presidential power in this area [7] [12]. Political actors advocating restriction frame the issue as immigration control and executive prerogative, while opponents frame it as preserving a constitutional guarantee rooted in post‑Civil War law and long‑standing precedent [11] [13]. The pending Supreme Court merits review—when it is decided—will determine whether the Court upholds Wong Kim Ark’s expansive jus soli legacy or narrows the reach of the Citizenship Clause in a way that affects children born to undocumented parents [9] [5].