Supreme Court split on birthright citizenship as originalist justices differ
The Court issued a 5-4 decision upholding the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship provision, revealing a division among conservative originalists over its application to children of illegal immigrants.
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for anyone born on American soil in a 5-4 ruling, rejecting President Trump’s effort to limit birthright citizenship for children of undocumented parents. Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote that the text of the 14th Amendment was clear at the time of its adoption and that Congress could modify the rule, as it did in a 1952 statute. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined the majority, emphasizing that Congress, not the Court, should address any changes.
Four conservative justices dissented. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued that the amendment’s original meaning did not envision a “powerful incentive” for illegal immigration, while Justice Clarence Thomas suggested citizenship should depend on whether the parents were domiciled in the United States. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch expressed uncertainty about extending citizenship to newborns of temporary visitors, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett signed the majority opinion.
Legal scholars noted the unexpected closeness of the vote. NYU law professor Melissa Murray said the split was surprising given the amendment’s wording, and SCOTUSblog analyst Sarah Isgur observed that the originalist approach appears increasingly contested. Constitutional historian Akhil Amar, citing Reconstruction-era intent, praised the decision as a reaffirmation of the amendment’s plain meaning.
The case highlights ongoing debates within the Court about how historical interpretation should guide contemporary issues, including upcoming arguments on the scope of the Second Amendment.