What is the current status of the Birthright Citizenship Act in the U.S. Congress?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Congressional action this term is active but unsettled: lawmakers in both the House and Senate have introduced competing measures titled or described as the “Birthright Citizenship Act” (and related bills) that would narrow who is "subject to the jurisdiction" under the 14th Amendment, but none of those measures has been enacted into law and key legal questions are headed to the Supreme Court [1] [2] [3]. The legislative fight is therefore one strand of a broader, high-stakes national dispute that includes executive orders, court challenges, and entrenched constitutional interpretations [4] [5] [6].
1. Current legislative posture in Congress: introduced bills, not law
Multiple bills in the 119th Congress carry names like “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025” and related titles in both chambers; for example, H.R.569 has been filed in the House and S.304 in the Senate with text and summaries available on Congress.gov describing a redefinition of who is “subject to U.S. jurisdiction” [1] [2]. Those entries show measures introduced and summarized for committee consideration, but the public record in the provided sources does not show enactment or final passage—these are active legislative proposals rather than statutes [1] [2].
2. What the congressional text would change if enacted
The bills’ core change is statutory: they redefine the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment to limit automatic citizenship to children born in the United States only when at least one parent is a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or certain non-citizens in lawful status (including military service), rather than including children of all parents physically present, regardless of status [1] [2]. Other bills in the same Congress, such as the “Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act of 2025,” use similar language to carve out classes—diplomats, enemy troops, and explicitly “illegal aliens”—as noncitizen categories at birth [7].
3. Politics, sponsors, and messaging on Capitol Hill
Sponsorship and public advocacy are bipartisan in the sense that multiple Republican members and some Senate offices have pushed or circulated versions of such legislation (the House press release from Rep. Brian Babin and a Senate PDF tied to Sen. Lindsey Graham illustrate Republican sponsorship and framing about “restoring” a presumed original meaning) [8] [9]. Opponents and other members of Congress argue that birthright citizenship is constitutionally protected and caution that Congress cannot override the 14th Amendment by statute—an argument reflected in legislative texts and in companion bills that assert such a constitutional protection [4] [10].
4. The constitutional and judicial backdrop shaping congressional leverage
The legislative push cannot be divorced from long-standing judicial interpretations: the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark and subsequent federal practice have been cited by critics of these bills and by civil-rights groups as anchoring a broad birthright guarantee; the Brennan Center traces congressional and judicial history as supporting inclusive jus soli citizenship [6]. At the same time, litigation over a 2025 executive order and pending Supreme Court review (cases like Barbara v. Trump and related petitions) mean that ultimate resolution may come from the judiciary rather than Congress, and the Court’s upcoming term is widely reported to include birthright citizenship as a key question [5] [3].
5. Practical outlook: immediate status and what to watch next
At present the “Birthright Citizenship Act” measures remain proposals—introduced, debated in public messaging, and available in text on Congress.gov and sponsors’ sites—but not enacted; whether Congress can or will pass a law that narrows the 14th Amendment remains uncertain both legally and politically [1] [2] [9]. The near-term determinant is likely to be the Supreme Court’s rulings on executive-branch efforts and constitutional interpretation (with a decision expected in the Court’s 2025–26 term), while Congress continues to introduce, refine, and publicize legislative alternatives that may shape political debate even if they fail to become law [5] [4].