English 
Português 
Español 
Birthright citizenship in the United States, legally known as jus soli, is one of the oldest and most debated pillars of American constitutional law. Every person born on U.S. soil automatically acquires American nationality, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, as established by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. In January 2025, the first executive order of President Donald Trump’s second term attempted to alter this 150-year-old framework, sparking one of the most significant legal battles of the contemporary era.
Constitutional Foundations
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, establishes in its Citizenship Clause that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside. The original purpose of the amendment was to guarantee full citizenship to newly freed Black Americans, reversing the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857.
The constitutional rule was reinforced by Section 1401 of Title 8 of the United States Code, which reproduces the text of the amendment in statutory law. This normative duplication means that any attempt to alter the birthright citizenship rule faces two simultaneous barriers: constitutional and statutory.
The Wong Kim Ark Precedent
The modern interpretation of the 14th Amendment was established in 1898, in the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco, the son of Chinese parents who were lawfully residing in the country under the Chinese Exclusion Act. After a trip to China, he was prevented from re-entering the U.S. on the grounds that he was not an American citizen.
The Supreme Court, by a vote of six to two, ruled that Wong was an American citizen by birth. The majority interpreted the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” as a reference to the duty to obey the laws of the United States — a scope that encompasses virtually everyone born on American soil, except children of foreign diplomats, children born during enemy military occupation, and, until 1924, Native Americans born in tribal territories.
The two dissenting justices argued for a narrow interpretation: being subject to jurisdiction would mean not maintaining an allegiance to another country — in other words, not holding citizenship inherited through jus sanguinis. This minority view from 1898 is precisely the argument invoked by the Trump administration in 2025.
The 2025 Executive Order
On January 20, 2025, Inauguration Day, Donald Trump signed the executive order titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. The text directed that, beginning February 19, 2025, federal agencies should not issue American citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. when the mother was in an irregular immigration status or temporary status, and the father was neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident.
The order was explicit in its non-retroactivity, applying only to births occurring on or after its effective date. Nonetheless, the measure represented a radical reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, based precisely on the minority view from the Wong Kim Ark precedent.
Immediate Judicial Response
Five states, civil rights organizations, and immigrant groups filed lawsuits in multiple federal districts within the first 48 hours. On January 23, 2025, federal judge John C. Coughenour of the Western District of Washington granted a nationwide injunction blocking the order from taking effect. Coughenour described the measure as blatantly unconstitutional, stating that after four decades on the federal bench he had never seen such a clear case.
Similar injunctions were issued in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. The administration appealed. In June 2025, the Supreme Court limited the scope of nationwide injunctions in a procedural ruling without addressing the constitutional merits. The Wong Kim Ark precedent, however, remained untouched, and federal judges continued blocking enforcement of the executive order on a case-by-case basis.
The Constitutional Weight of the Rule
The dominant constitutional doctrine holds that birthright citizenship can only be altered through a constitutional amendment — a process requiring approval by two-thirds of each chamber of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of state legislatures. Not even an act of Congress could restrict the scope of the 14th Amendment, as recognized by the Supreme Court in decisions such as Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
An executive order, by definition a normative instrument of the Executive Branch, occupies a hierarchical position even below that of statutory law. Under this logic, any attempt to restrict birthright citizenship by presidential decree faces nearly insurmountable obstacles in judicial review. This is the consensus among the majority of American constitutional scholars.
Jus Soli vs. Jus Sanguinis
Jus soli (right of the soil) grants citizenship by place of birth. Jus sanguinis (right of blood) grants citizenship by descent. The United States employs both principles: unconditional jus soli for those born on American territory, and jus sanguinis for children of American citizens born abroad, subject to prior residency requirements of the American parent.
Only about 30 countries in the world apply unconditional jus soli, primarily in the Americas. Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and the United States share this tradition. European, Asian, and African countries largely adopt jus sanguinis regimes with subsequent accommodations for children born and raised in their territory.
Practical Implications for Immigrants
Foreign families who have had children in the United States before or after February 19, 2025, should carefully document all legal milestones. The state birth certificate issued by the state’s Vital Records office is the primary proof of citizenship. The child’s U.S. passport, requested from the Department of State, is the most robust form of international documentation.
For cases after February 19, 2025, federal injunctions remain the protective instrument, but immigration attorneys recommend legal guidance to avoid documentary gaps. The Social Security Administration continues issuing Social Security numbers based on state birth certificates, reinforcing the normal conduct of procedures while the legal controversy remains unresolved.
Outlook for the Coming Years
The ultimate fate of the executive order will be decided by the Supreme Court in a merits controversy expected to be heard in the coming years. Even the current conservative court retains a majority that respects established precedents, and Wong Kim Ark is considered a cornerstone of American constitutional law. Regardless of the outcome, any definitive change to the birthright citizenship rule would require a constitutional amendment — a process that is politically unlikely in the current climate of polarization.
For the immigrant community, the basic principle remains: children born on American soil, in nearly all circumstances, continue to receive American citizenship automatically. Monitoring judicial decisions through official channels is essential, but there is no reason for widespread panic regarding the constitutional right to jus soli citizenship in the United States.
Victoria Harper
Editor-in-Chief
Leading journalism and editorial content at Visto n’ Visa, Victoria helps make immigration topics clear, trustworthy, and easy to understand. Her focus is on delivering useful, human, and relevant content for people exploring new paths abroad.
