Automatic citizenship to everyone born within the borders of the United States. This policy, which is a bedrock of American constitutional law, has long been held as a fundamental principle of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. However, within a few hours of coming into office, Trump passed his first executive order: overturning birthright citizenship in the United States, arguing that the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of undocumented immigrants from automatic citizenship.

Three reasons lead me to believe that the executive order’s legal merit trumps its moral merit.

The 1898 Wong Kim case did not settle the question of those in the United States illegally.

In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled, culminating he landmark 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that children born on American soil to noncitizen parents, provided they were not foreign diplomats or enemy occupiers, were entitled to U.S. citizenship. However, this ruling did not explicitly address the status of children born to individuals who entered or remained in the country unlawfully. The Court’s opinion, while expansive in its affirmation of jus soli (the principle that right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship, was predicated on the assumption that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were lawful permanent residents. This left unresolved whether the same protections extend to the offspring of those who lack legal authorization to be in the country. The Trump administration’s argument hinges on this interpretative gap, contending that the Constitution does not extend automatic citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants– an assertion that would fundamentally alter the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is not as simple as banning ‘birthright’; it is about Trump’s attempt to redefine the term ‘subject to jurisdiction. ’

The prevailing legal understanding, established through judicial precedent, holds that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means being subject to U.S. laws and authority, and the only stated exceptions are foreign diplomats, enemy occupiers, and certain Indigenous tribes at the time of the amendment’s ratification. While the executive order has been framed simplistically as banning birthright, the legal issue at hand seems far more nuanced, giving the Supreme Court leeway to interpret it broadly. Essentially, Trump’s executive order seeks to redefine jurisdiction radically in a way that would exclude undocumented immigrants and, by extension, their U.S.-born children from the automatic grant of citizenship. Since undocumented immigrants have violated U.S immigration laws, the argument is that these individuals are not fully “subject” to U.S jurisdiction in the way “legal” residents are. If this interpretation is upheld, Trump’s order would not be a constitutional overriding of birthright citizenship but rather a clarification of its intended legal scope.

An Expansive Take on Presidential Authority Interpreting Immigration Laws.

I am worried that the Supreme Court may find that Trump’s executive order is well within his rights as President since the executive branch has broad discretion in interpreting and enforcing immigration laws, particularly when it comes to defining who falls under U.S. jurisdiction. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) grants the President significant authority to regulate immigration, and past administrations have exercised this power to shape citizenship policies. This use could be cited as a precedent in this case.

Previously, too, the Supreme Court has recognized that immigration policy is inherently tied to national sovereignty and falls largely within the purview of the executive branch. For example, in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) and Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the Court reaffirmed the President’s broad authority over immigration, particularly when national security or public interest is at stake. Trump could rely on the same argumentative lever in this case, too. By issuing an executive order that reinterprets the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, Trump is exercising the same kind of discretion used to enforce deportation policies and regulate asylum claims.

While it undoubtedly challenges the moral and historical foundations of birthright citizenship, the conservative Supreme Court may ultimately decide that the President can reinterpret constitutional provisions under the ambit of this three-pronged argument. If upheld, this decision would mark a seismic shift in American citizenship law. It would set a precedent that future administrations could exploit while answering the question of what it truly means to be American.