Supreme Court Highlights Controversial Birthright Citizenship Interpretation

Following the Supreme Court's announcement in April that it would review the nationwide injunction blocking President Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, the former president expressed enthusiasm in the Oval Office.

He stated that he was "very pleased" the Court agreed to examine the issue, which he argued had been widely "misunderstood." According to him, the 14th Amendment — traditionally interpreted as granting citizenship to anyone born within the United States — actually centers on "slavery."

"It’s not about visitors stepping on U.S. soil and instantly gaining citizenship," he explained, emphasizing, "It was originally about slavery."

For over a century, the prevailing interpretation among scholars and courts has been that while the 14th Amendment was enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War, its intent extended beyond addressing slavery. Judicial rulings have consistently held that the amendment guarantees citizenship not only to children of former slaves but also to all individuals born on American soil.

The alternative interpretation that the amendment does not confer automatic citizenship was once regarded as a fringe theory, primarily advanced by John Eastman, a relatively obscure California law professor affiliated with the conservative Claremont Institute. Eastman later gained attention for providing legal arguments supporting efforts to contest the 2020 presidential election results.

The evolution of this theory from the margins of legal academia to the highest levels of government and, most recently, to the Supreme Court, sheds light on how certain legal positions, once deemed unconventional, have been embraced to support restrictive immigration policies.