Listen to this article
Download AudioBirthright Citizenship SCOTUS Case: What’s at Stake?
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
The Supreme Court is looking at a case that touches the very heart of who is an American. It’s about birthright citizenship, the idea that if you’re born here, you’re a citizen. For Black folks, this principle is deeply tied to our history and our fight for equality. But this hearing is complicated. In fact, it’s not entirely clear what the Court wants to decide. This uncertainty hangs heavy, especially when our fundamental rights could be on the line.
SCOTUS Hearing: A Cloud of Uncertainty
The Supreme Court’s current hearing on birthright citizenship is wrapped in a fog of questions. No one seems entirely sure what specific legal issues the justices plan to tackle (Politico). The case itself stems from challenges to former President Donald Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship as we know it. However, the Court might sidestep the big constitutional question about the policy itself. Instead, they could focus on more technical, procedural questions about how the case got to them.
Adding to the confusion, this hearing came about through emergency appeals. This means it skipped some of the usual, more thorough steps where lawyers submit detailed written arguments (SCOTUSblog). Consequently, the quick process has left many observers wondering about the Court’s ultimate aims. This ambiguity is concerning because the outcome could have massive impacts, particularly for communities of color whose citizenship rights have historically been challenged.
The Battle Over Judicial Power
Beyond birthright citizenship, this Supreme Court case also digs into a big question: how much power should federal judges have? Specifically, it’s looking at “nationwide injunctions.” These are powerful court orders where a single judge can block a federal policy across the entire country (Politico). The Trump administration wanted to push its birthright citizenship policy forward, even though lower courts had issued these injunctions to stop it.
Now, the Supreme Court is examining whether these nationwide blocks are appropriate. Several justices have openly expressed doubts about them, suggesting they might be an overreach of judicial authority (SCOTUSblog). Therefore, a ruling that limits this power could make it harder for courts to stop federal policies that people believe are unconstitutional or harmful. This aspect of the case could reshape the balance of power between the courts and the executive branch for years to come.
The Debate Over Nationwide Injunctions
What Are They?
Nationwide injunctions are court orders issued by a single federal judge that can halt a government policy or action across the entire United States, not just in that judge’s local district.
Why Are They Controversial?
Supporters see them as a vital check on executive power, allowing courts to quickly stop potentially illegal or harmful federal policies. Critics, including some Supreme Court justices, argue they represent judicial overreach, allowing one judge to set national policy, which can lead to conflicting rulings and disrupt government functions.
Birthright Citizenship: Our American Foundation
Birthright citizenship is a core principle in America. It simply means that if you are born on U.S. soil or in U.S. territories, you are a U.S. citizen. This idea is rooted in the **Fourteenth Amendment** to the Constitution, which says that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” This is huge for everyone, but especially for immigrant families and minority communities, including us African Americans (American Immigration Council). It guarantees a basic level of equality and belonging from birth.
This isn’t a new idea, either. The Supreme Court case **United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898** strongly backed this up. The court ruled that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrant parents, who were not citizens themselves, was indeed a U.S. citizen (American Immigration Council). This case set a powerful precedent. Birthright citizenship is about more than just a piece of paper; it’s about promoting fairness and making sure everyone starts on a more equal footing, which is vital for communities that have historically faced discrimination.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898): Affirming Birthright
Case: United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Year Decided: 1898
Core Issue: Whether a child born in the U.S. to non-citizen immigrant parents was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.
The Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents legally residing in the U.S., was a U.S. citizen by birth.
The 14th Amendment: A Legacy for Black Americans
When we talk about birthright citizenship, we have to talk about the 14th Amendment. It’s the bedrock. The most important part for this discussion is the Citizenship Clause, which states: “All 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” (American Immigration Council). This language is clear and has been the foundation of American citizenship for over 150 years.
Crucially, this amendment was passed after the Civil War, in 1868. A primary reason for it was to ensure that formerly enslaved African Americans were recognized as full citizens with equal rights (UC Davis Letters and Science Magazine). Before this, the Dred Scott decision had infamously declared that Black people could not be citizens. The 14th Amendment overturned that, making citizenship a birthright. Therefore, any attempt to weaken birthright citizenship today feels like an attack on this hard-won progress and a step back towards a time when citizenship was used to exclude and oppress Black people. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 also played a role, laying some of the groundwork for these citizenship rights.
Understanding the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause
Trump’s Policy and Its Constitutional Questions
Former President Trump’s initiative aimed to end birthright citizenship, or at least significantly limit it, through executive action rather than through a constitutional amendment (Answer to “Trump’s Initiative”). This was a bold move, as most legal scholars believe the 14th Amendment protects birthright citizenship. The core of his plan was to argue that children born to non-citizens or undocumented immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. in the way the 14th Amendment means. This interpretation, however, goes against long-standing legal understanding.
Interestingly, while the constitutionality of Trump’s order is a huge issue, it wasn’t the main event during the recent Supreme Court arguments (SCOTUSblog). Some justices did hint that they think the order itself might be unconstitutional. Yet, the hearing seemed more focused on those procedural questions and the power of judges (SCOTUSblog). This could mean a direct ruling on whether a president can change birthright citizenship by themselves might be delayed. Still, the threat to this fundamental right remains a serious concern for many, especially those in immigrant communities and communities of color who see it as a vital protection.
Why Birthright Citizenship is a Racial Justice Issue
Birthright citizenship is not just a legal concept; it’s deeply connected to racial justice in America. For African Americans, the fight for citizenship was a fight for humanity and equality. The 14th Amendment, which enshrined birthright citizenship, was a direct response to the Dred Scott decision and the system of slavery that denied Black people their personhood, let alone citizenship (UC Davis Letters and Science Magazine). It was a promise that this nation would move towards including all people born here as equals.
Therefore, challenging birthright citizenship today echoes those past struggles. It risks creating different classes of people, where some are citizens by birth and others are not, based on their parents’ status. This can disproportionately affect communities of color, including Black immigrants and their children. Upholding birthright citizenship is about upholding the principle that everyone born in this country shares the same fundamental rights and belonging, a principle that is essential for a truly just and equal society. Any erosion of this right is a step backward in our long journey toward racial equality.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.
