On Wednesday, April 1, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara — one of the most consequential constitutional cases in decades. The question before the court is simple to state and enormously difficult to answer: Does the 14th Amendment guarantee automatic citizenship to every person born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status?

Before the arguments begin, every conservative should understand what this case is actually about — and what hangs in the balance.

The Background

On his first day back in office in January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order declaring that children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas would no longer automatically receive American citizenship. The order was grounded in a specific reading of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which states that citizenship is conferred on persons born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The administration’s argument is that illegal immigrants and temporary visitors are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the way the amendment’s authors intended — and therefore their children are not automatically entitled to citizenship at birth.

Every lower court that has reviewed the order has blocked it, ruling it unconstitutional. The executive order has never taken effect. Now the Supreme Court will decide the question on the merits.

The 14th Amendment in Context

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, three years after the Civil War. Its primary purpose was to overturn the Supreme Court’s notorious 1857 Dred Scott decision, which had ruled that Black Americans — whether enslaved or free — could never be citizens of the United States. The amendment’s framers wanted to ensure that citizenship could never again be denied on the basis of race or birth status.

For more than 125 years, the prevailing interpretation has been that virtually everyone born on American soil is a citizen at birth — a principle known as jus soli, or “right of the soil.” The landmark 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark established that even children born to parents who were not citizens — in that case, Chinese immigrants — were entitled to birthright citizenship.

The Trump administration argues that Wong Kim Ark has been misread, and that the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase was always meant to exclude those without a permanent allegiance to the United States.

The Conservative Case for Reform

Conservatives who support the administration’s position make several arguments worth understanding seriously.

First, the originalist argument: the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” had a specific legal meaning in 1868. It excluded Native Americans (who owed allegiance to their tribes), foreign diplomats, and others not fully under American legal authority. The argument is that illegal immigrants, who have violated federal law to enter the country, occupy a similar legal gray area.

Second, the policy argument: birthright citizenship as currently practiced is nearly unique among developed nations. The United Kingdom ended automatic birthright citizenship in 1983. Canada, Australia, and most of Europe have moved away from unconditional jus soli. The argument is that American law is an outlier that creates perverse incentives — including birth tourism schemes and chain migration pathways — that undermine the integrity of the immigration system.

Third, the sovereignty argument: a nation has the right to define its own citizens. Citizenship confers profound privileges — voting rights, access to public benefits, the ability to sponsor relatives for immigration. Allowing those privileges to be obtained simply by crossing the border to give birth, the argument goes, is inconsistent with meaningful national sovereignty.

What Comes Next

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling by June or July 2026. A ruling upholding the executive order would be one of the most significant constitutional decisions in generations — effectively reinterpreting the 14th Amendment for the first time since Wong Kim Ark.

This week, American Foundations will walk through the legal arguments, the policy stakes, and what a conservative ruling would mean for America’s future. Wednesday’s oral arguments will tell us a great deal about where the six conservative justices are leaning.

Pay attention. This one matters.