House Judiciary Enters Debate On Future Of Birthright Citizenship

Permanent resident cards with welcome guide and flag.

House Judiciary Committee convenes a critical hearing on birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, bringing together legal experts to examine constitutional implications while conservative lawmakers question current interpretations.

Key Takeaways

The House Judiciary Subcommittee held a hearing titled “‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’: Birthright Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment” to examine the Citizenship Clause and recent executive orders.
Legal experts including Charles J. Cooper, R. Trent McCotter, and Matt O’Brien provided testimony on constitutional interpretations of birthright citizenship.
The 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark established that children born on U.S. soil are citizens regardless of their parents’ citizenship status.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, representing over 240 organizations, warned that undermining birthright citizenship could create a permanent underclass and administrative challenges.
The hearing reflects ongoing conservative questions about whether children of illegal immigrants should automatically receive citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

Constitutional Examination of Birthright Citizenship

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government convened on February 25, 2025, for a hearing focused on birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The session, titled “‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’: Birthright Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment,” brought together legal experts to provide testimony on constitutional interpretations and implications of birthright citizenship. The hearing specifically examined the meaning of the Citizenship Clause in relation to children born to non-citizens on American soil.

Witnesses included Charles J. Cooper, Chairman of Cooper & Kirk PLLC; R. Trent McCotter from Boyden Gray PLLC; Matt O’Brien from the Immigration Reform Law Institute; and Amanda Frost, Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. Each expert presented different legal perspectives on whether the 14th Amendment’s language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” applies to children of illegal immigrants or those temporarily in the country on non-immigrant visas.

LIVE: House Judiciary Committee's Hearing on Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment https://t.co/N5Y6t5jFZN

— NTD News (@NTDNews) February 25, 2025

Historical Context and Supreme Court Precedent

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, 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.” This amendment was originally passed after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship to former slaves and their descendants. In 1898, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of this clause in the landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

According to the case, Miller v. Albright, “There are ‘two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person ‘born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’ Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress.”

In the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents who were legally present but ineligible for citizenship was automatically a U.S. citizen. This ruling has been interpreted by most legal scholars to apply to all children born on U.S. soil, with only a few exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats. Conservative legal scholars at the hearing questioned whether this interpretation should extend to children of those illegally present in the country.

Civil Rights Concerns and Constitutional Challenges

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition representing more than 240 national organizations, submitted a statement to the subcommittee emphasizing the significance of maintaining birthright citizenship. The organization warned that attempts to reinterpret or narrow the 14th Amendment’s scope could have serious consequences for American society, potentially creating a permanent underclass of residents without citizenship rights.

The Leadership Conference also highlighted that any legal efforts to limit birthright citizenship through legislation or executive orders would likely face significant constitutional challenges. Their testimony noted that restricting the Citizenship Clause could result in questioning the citizenship status of many Americans and create new bureaucratic processes to determine and verify citizenship. The organization emphasized that the Citizenship Clause has been crucial for civil rights, including voting rights, and has helped unify America despite cultural diversity.

Potential Legislative and Judicial Paths Forward

The hearing provided a platform for legislators to understand potential paths for future legal reforms or judicial reviews on birthright citizenship. Conservative members of the committee expressed concerns about the current interpretation granting automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants or those temporarily in the country. Some argued that the original intent of the 14th Amendment did not include providing citizenship to children of those not legally resident in the United States.

Legal experts at the hearing discussed whether executive action, congressional legislation, or a new Supreme Court challenge could alter the current understanding of birthright citizenship. Constitutional scholars debated whether the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” creates limitations on who qualifies for birthright citizenship based on the legal status of parents. The hearing represents part of ongoing conservative efforts to reexamine longstanding constitutional interpretations regarding immigration and citizenship rights.