The Supreme Court heard probably one of the most important cases in the past few decades. Trump v. Barbara is a case based on the constitutional question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment gives citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents' immigration status. The petitioners in this case are the government, with Solicitor General Sauer representing it. Starting with his opening statement, where arguments are explained without pause, General Sauer bases his interpretation of the Fourteenth on all persons "born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" being citizens of the United States. The government argues for a narrower interpretation of the clause. Throughout the case, the government faces many questions from the justices challenging whether its interpretation aligns with constitutional history, legal precedent, and English common law traditions.
The court has to determine if the Fourteenth Amendment was made with a broad rule, which is automatic birthright citizenship, or a narrow rule about loyalty and legal status within the United States.
The government relied on the Civil rights Act of 1866, emphasizing, "not subject to any foreign power," arguing that the framers of the act and the Fourteenth Amendment rejected the traditional British common Law understanding of Allegiance. British common law is a legal system made during the late 12th century. This legal system was used in every English territory. Now, allegiance isn't specifically defined but can be interpreted as political membership because when responding to Justice Gorsuch, Sauer said " you become part of their political community, and you become akin to a citizen." It seems the government says allegiance means owing direct and immediate allegiance only to the U.S. and is created through lawful domicile and intent to remain permanently and become part of the American political community.
In the government's opening statement, they framed the Citizenship Clause historically rather than universally. They said it was to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford after the Civil War, to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their descendants. The reason they mentioned this was to distinguish formerly enslaved people from temporary visitors and undocumented immigrants, arguing temporary visitors or undocumented immigrants lack political allegiance, unlike formerly enslaved people who have been domiciled here for generations in America. In other words, the children born in the U.S. to temporary or undocumented immigrants don't have the legal capacity to become citizens upon birth. Additionally, the government argues that America switched from the English common law following the civil war. If this is found to be true, the court would likely lean more toward the government's argument, as it would suggest that our founding fathers did not want English common law, and by extension, birthright citizenship. They also repeatedly cite Senator Lyman Trumbull, one of the principal authors of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Senator Trumbull defined "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as not owing allegiance to anybody else. They also cited the Supreme Court from the nineteenth century recognizing "direct and immediate allegiance" as the constitutional jurisdiction.
Domicile is a large part of the government's argument. They defined domicile as lawful presence combined with the intent to remain permanently within the United States. They go on to argue that domicile created the political relationship necessary for citizenship because individuals who establish lawful permanent residence become part of the American political community. The governments' interpretation of the Citizenship Clause implicitly assumes domicile even though the term itself does not appear directly in the Fourteenth Amendment. They used Justice Story's comments dating back to the nineteenth century and congressional debates about the Civil Rights Act of 1866, to show that domicile over history is determined through political allegiance. The key point is the government's argument says that lawful immigrants capable of establishing permanent residence might be able to satisfy the jurisdiction element required for their children to gain citizenship upon birth, while temporary visitors or undocumented immigrants can't because of the lack of legal capacity to form lawful domicile. If ruled in the government's favor, they asked for it to be prospective, meaning for the future, so anyone who doesn't fit within this argument would still remain a citizen.
The respondents are represented by Cecillia D. Wang. The respondents rely heavily on continuity or continuation with the English common law and the longstanding precedent behind it. They dig deep using the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark because of its ruling of the Fourteenth amendment which was quite broad in setting precedent for birthright citizenship using the phrase jus soli, meaning "right of the soil," deriving from a Latin phrase. This means anyone born on U.S. territory is a citizen no matter what immigration status the parents have, with some exceptions like children of diplomats or hostile occupying forces. The respondents argue that "jurisdiction" refers to being subject to U.S. authority rather than political allegiance only to America.
Something I noticed within the case is another large constitutional issue at hand: the relationship between citizenship and congressional power. The governments' argument, if ruled in their favor, would allow Congress to determine which individuals possess the legal capacity to establish lawful domicile. Congress would then have the ability to indirectly control citizenship through immigration laws. The Amendments are made to protect the inalienable rights we have, so Congress determining who is applicable under the Fourteenth means more power for Congress and possibly an overreach in power given to Congress, messing up the balance of power.
Trump v. Barbara is a difficult case to determine who is more right. While the government views citizenship as something like a political status dependent on allegiance, lawful domicile, and the melting pot for lawful immigrants into our political community, the respondents argue that it's purely territorial and view citizenship as being traditionally derived from English common law, so it should stay the same. The court has to determine if the Fourteenth Amendment was made with a broad rule, which is automatic birthright citizenship, or a narrow rule about loyalty and legal status within the United States.