Trump urges Supreme Court to decide whether to end birthright citizenship

[Elderberry]

SCOTUSblog by Amy Howe 9/26/2025

The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the legality of President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end the guarantee of citizenship to virtually everyone born in the United States. In a pair of nearly identical filings, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to review a ruling by a federal appeals court holding that the order violates the Constitution, as well as a similar decision by a federal judge in New Hampshire. Sauer told the court that “the mistaken view that birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences.”

At issue in the case is the meaning of a provision of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The amendment was adopted to overrule the Supreme Court’s 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, holding that a Black person whose ancestors were brought to the United States and sold as enslaved persons was not entitled to any protection from the federal courts because he was not a U.S. citizen.

Four decades later, the Supreme Court considered the case of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to parents of Chinese descent. Writing for the six-justice majority, Justice Horace Gray explained that the 14th Amendment “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”

The executive order that Trump signed on Jan. 20 would end birthright citizenship. Fulfilling a campaign pledge, the order provided that people born in the United States after Feb. 19, 2025, would not be entitled to U.S. citizenship if their parents are in the country illegally or temporarily.

A flurry of legal challenges followed, and federal judges around the country concluded that Trump’s order was likely unconstitutional. One such judge, Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, barred the Trump administration from enforcing the executive order anywhere in the country – an order sometimes known as a “nationwide” or “universal” injunction – and called birthright citizenship “a fundamental constitutional right.”

More: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/trump-urges-supreme-court-to-decide-whether-to-end-birthright-citizenship/

[Fishrrman]

This is the right move -- provided Mr. Trump can back the Court curmudgeons into a corner from which they'll have to issue an opinion.

Steps to settle the "natural born citizenship" issue cannot be taken UNTIL the Supreme Court (the "modern" Court, not some old decision) establishes their position, one way or the other.

ONLY THEN can it move forward.
Probably with a Constitutional Amendment.

[Elderberry]

On docket: DOJ sends request to Supreme Court for ruling on birthright citizenship

WND 9/29/2025

The Department of Justice is asking the Supreme Court to review – and decide – the birthright citizenship case this term.

The fight is over whether the 14th Amendment grants American citizenship to the children of illegal aliens who have broken U.S. laws to enter then give birth inside U.S. borders.

President Donald Trump contends that's not what the writers of the Constitution intended, even though that's been the practice for a good many years already.

A report at the Washington Examiner explained the Trump administration filed two petitions seeking the review soon.

The petitions, filed Friday, appeared on the court's public docket Monday.

The cases were launched by Democrat-run states and groups of people who might be affected.

    The largest case going before SCOTUS in my lifetime will be birthright citizenship.

    It's just over Roe v. IMO

    The author of the 14th Amendment when he addressed Congress told them:

    1.) Foreigners
    2.) Aliens

    Were not included in birthright citizenship. pic.twitter.com/IxnqJX1Qi1

More: https://www.wnd.com/2025/09/docket-doj-sends-request-supreme-court-ruling-birthright/

[Bigun]

There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!

David Lawrence
U.S. News & World Report
September 27, 1957

A MISTAKEN BELIEF -- that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the "Fourteenth Amendment" -- is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself.

The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution only 21 States legally ratified it so it failed of ratification.

The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians, establishes these events as occurring in 1867 and 1868:

1. Outside the South, six States -- New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland -- failed to ratify the proposed amendment.

2. In the South, ten States -- Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana -- by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.

3. A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the "Fourteenth Amendment."

4. Congress -- which had deprived the Southern States of their seats in the Senate -- did not lawfully pass the resolution of submission in the first instance.

5. The Southern States, which had rejected the amendment were coerced by a federal statute passed in 1867 that took away the right to vote or hold office from all citizens who had served in the Confederate Army. Military governors were appointed and instructed to prepare the roll of voters. All this happened in spite of the presidential proclamation of amnesty previously issued by the President. New legislatures were thereupon chosen and forced to "ratify" under penalty of continued exile from the Union. In Louisiana, a General sent down from the North presided over the State legislature.

6. Abraham Lincoln had declared many times that the Union was "inseparable" and "indivisible." After his death, and when the war was over, the ratification by the Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had been accepted as legal. But Congress in the 1867 law imposed the specific conditions under which the Southern States would be "entitled to representation in Congress."

7. Congress passed the 1867 law that declared the Southern States could not have their seats in either the Senate or House in the next session unless they ratified the "Fourteenth Amendment," took an unprecedented step. No such right -- to compel a State by an act of Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment -- is to be found anywhere in the Constitution. Nor has this procedure ever been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States.

8. President Andrew Johnson publicly denounced this law as unconstitutional. But it was passed over his veto.

9. Secretary of State Seward was on the spot in July 1868 when the various "ratifications" of a spurious nature were placed before him. The legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey had notified him that they rescinded their earlier action of ratification. He said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State "to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification." He added that the amendment was valid "if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States." This was a very big "if." It will be noted that the real issue, therefore, is not only whether the forced "ratification" by the ten Southern States was lawful, but whether the withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey - - two Northern States -- was legal. The right of a State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind at any time before the final proclamation of ratification is issued by the Secretary of State has been confirmed in connection with other constitutional amendments.

10. The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 -- three months after the Secretary's proclamation was issued --passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the "Fourteenth Amendment" had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the "ratifications" in the Southern States were "usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void" and that, "until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment." ...

Rest at headline link

[Kamaji]

On docket: DOJ sends request to Supreme Court for ruling on birthright citizenship

WND 9/29/2025

The Department of Justice is asking the Supreme Court to review – and decide – the birthright citizenship case this term.

The fight is over whether the 14th Amendment grants American citizenship to the children of illegal aliens who have broken U.S. laws to enter then give birth inside U.S. borders.

President Donald Trump contends that's not what the writers of the Constitution intended, even though that's been the practice for a good many years already.

A report at the Washington Examiner explained the Trump administration filed two petitions seeking the review soon.

The petitions, filed Friday, appeared on the court's public docket Monday.

The cases were launched by Democrat-run states and groups of people who might be affected.

    The largest case going before SCOTUS in my lifetime will be birthright citizenship.

    It's just over Roe v. IMO

    The author of the 14th Amendment when he addressed Congress told them:

    1.) Foreigners
    2.) Aliens

    Were not included in birthright citizenship. pic.twitter.com/IxnqJX1Qi1

More: https://www.wnd.com/2025/09/docket-doj-sends-request-supreme-court-ruling-birthright/

So, what’s the difference between “Foreigners” and “Aliens”?

[DefiantMassRINO]

Congress could write a law defining conditions and requirements to be a natural-born American. 

Dems will take it to court to keep anchor babies in US.

With anchor babies, Dems will demand that the remainder of the family be allowed to stay to keep the family unit together.

Then, that family will use chain migration to bring over more relatives ... and the Dems hope they'll all be counted on the 2030 Census and vote Dem.

Anchor babies and 'Dreamers' are the keysones to the Dems' voter importation scheme.  Yes, it's for the children.

[Fishrrman]

Bigun posted:
"There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!"

Works for me.
That's the worst one of them all.

Hmmmm...
If the Fourteenth Amendment isn't legitimate, could this also mean that the Thirteenth isn't, either...?

How could this be resolved, 150+ years later...?
By a Supreme Court decision?
By an act of Congress?
I'm guessing Congress would have to handle it as they did the prohibition amendment -- by specifically repealing it...

[Smokin Joe]

Bigun posted:
"There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!"

Works for me.
That's the worst one of them all.

Hmmmm...
If the Fourteenth Amendment isn't legitimate, could this also mean that the Thirteenth isn't, either...?

How could this be resolved, 150+ years later...?
By a Supreme Court decision?
By an act of Congress?
I'm guessing Congress would have to handle it as they did the prohibition amendment -- by specifically repealing it...

Take the 17th with it.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!

David Lawrence
U.S. News & World Report
September 27, 1957

A MISTAKEN BELIEF -- that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the "Fourteenth Amendment" -- is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself.

The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution only 21 States legally ratified it so it failed of ratification.

The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians, establishes these events as occurring in 1867 and 1868:

1. Outside the South, six States -- New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland -- failed to ratify the proposed amendment.

2. In the South, ten States -- Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana -- by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.

3. A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the "Fourteenth Amendment."

4. Congress -- which had deprived the Southern States of their seats in the Senate -- did not lawfully pass the resolution of submission in the first instance.

5. The Southern States, which had rejected the amendment were coerced by a federal statute passed in 1867 that took away the right to vote or hold office from all citizens who had served in the Confederate Army. Military governors were appointed and instructed to prepare the roll of voters. All this happened in spite of the presidential proclamation of amnesty previously issued by the President. New legislatures were thereupon chosen and forced to "ratify" under penalty of continued exile from the Union. In Louisiana, a General sent down from the North presided over the State legislature.

6. Abraham Lincoln had declared many times that the Union was "inseparable" and "indivisible." After his death, and when the war was over, the ratification by the Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had been accepted as legal. But Congress in the 1867 law imposed the specific conditions under which the Southern States would be "entitled to representation in Congress."

7. Congress passed the 1867 law that declared the Southern States could not have their seats in either the Senate or House in the next session unless they ratified the "Fourteenth Amendment," took an unprecedented step. No such right -- to compel a State by an act of Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment -- is to be found anywhere in the Constitution. Nor has this procedure ever been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States.

8. President Andrew Johnson publicly denounced this law as unconstitutional. But it was passed over his veto.

9. Secretary of State Seward was on the spot in July 1868 when the various "ratifications" of a spurious nature were placed before him. The legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey had notified him that they rescinded their earlier action of ratification. He said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State "to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification." He added that the amendment was valid "if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States." This was a very big "if." It will be noted that the real issue, therefore, is not only whether the forced "ratification" by the ten Southern States was lawful, but whether the withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey - - two Northern States -- was legal. The right of a State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind at any time before the final proclamation of ratification is issued by the Secretary of State has been confirmed in connection with other constitutional amendments.

10. The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 -- three months after the Secretary's proclamation was issued --passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the "Fourteenth Amendment" had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the "ratifications" in the Southern States were "usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void" and that, "until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment." ...

Rest at headline link

Interesting to see how US NEWS used to be a real reporting agency, not the leftist rag it later became.