Has there ever been a challenge to the 14th amendment by ilegal alien descendent?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Yes — noncitizens and the children of noncitizens have mounted direct constitutional challenges invoking the 14th Amendment: the seminal 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark lawsuit, in which a U.S.-born son of Chinese immigrants sued to be recognized as a citizen, and the 1982 Plyler v. Doe class action, brought on behalf of undocumented schoolchildren who challenged a Texas law under the Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause [1] [2] [3].
1. United States v. Wong Kim Ark: a 19th‑century birthright test that came from an immigrant’s challenge
Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, was denied recognition as a U.S. citizen after travel and successfully sued, forcing the Supreme Court to interpret the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment and establish over a century of precedent that most persons born on U.S. soil are citizens regardless of parental immigration status [1] [4].
2. Plyler v. Doe: undocumented children as plaintiffs asserting 14th Amendment protections
In Plyler v. Doe, undocumented school‑age children and their families sued Texas to block a statute that denied state funds and allowed school districts to refuse enrollment; the Supreme Court held the Equal Protection Clause barred the state from excluding children from public education, explicitly noting that “whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a ‘person’” entitled to protection [2] [3] [5].
3. How these cases map to the user’s phrase “illegal alien descendant”
Both cases squarely answer the practical meaning of the question: a person born in the United States to immigrant parents (Wong Kim Ark) and undocumented minors living in the U.S. (Plyler) directly challenged state or federal actions under the 14th Amendment and prevailed in key respects, establishing that descendants or occupants without lawful status can and have used the Amendment as a basis for claims [1] [2] [3].
4. Modern political and legal pressures seeking to overturn or narrow that precedent
Despite those long‑standing rulings, recent political moves—most prominently an executive order and renewed legislative campaigns to limit birthright citizenship—have reopened the debate and produced lawsuits and counter‑suits; legal scholars and civil‑rights groups warn courts are likely to reject efforts to undo Wong Kim Ark and Plyler, but those political pushes are explicitly aimed at narrowing what the 14th Amendment has been taken to guarantee [4] [6] [7].
5. Scholarly consensus, competing readings, and the limits of available reporting
Most mainstream legal scholars and policy organizations regard the Wong Kim Ark interpretation as controlling and view attempts to strip birthright citizenship as legally dubious; dissenting scholars and some conservative judges argue “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should be read more narrowly, which is the legal argument driving modern challenges, but source material shows the consensus view defends broad birthright application while noting a politically driven minority seeks change [1] [6] [8].
6. What the record does not show and what that means for future challenges
The provided reporting documents historic constitutional litigation by people born to immigrants and by undocumented children (Wong Kim Ark, Plyler) and documents contemporary political efforts to overturn that jurisprudence, but does not provide a single recent case where an adult descendant without U.S. birth successfully sued to create a new form of 14th Amendment citizenship beyond those precedents; the limits of available sources mean it cannot be asserted here whether any unpublished or lower‑court novel challenges by later‑generation undocumented descendants exist beyond the well‑known landmark cases and current high‑profile political litigation [1] [2] [4] [6].