2026-03-30T13:50:09-04:00 / 福克斯新闻
本周将开始就特朗普的行政令展开辩论，该行政令挑战一项已维持了一个多世纪的宪法保障
作者：凯莉·库佩克·厄班 福克斯新闻
发布于2026年3月30日 美国东部夏令时下午1:50
最高法院将审理重大出生权公民身份案
宪法律师马克·史密斯在《福克斯报道》中讨论了最高法院即将审理的出生权公民身份案，以及该案对唐纳德·特朗普总统任期的潜在影响。
NEW 你现在可以收听福克斯新闻的文章了！
收听本文
时长3分钟
本周，美国最高法院将就可能是21世纪最重要的案件之一展开辩论：出生权公民身份。
此次最高法院将审理的争议点是，在多名法官阻止该行政令在诉讼期间生效后，特朗普终止出生权公民身份的行政令是否符合第十四修正案的公民身份条款。
简单来说，最高法院将审议在美国领土上出生的人是否无论其父母的身份如何，自动成为美国公民。
阿利托怒斥律师混淆庇护法的文字游戏
示威者于2025年6月27日在华盛顿特区最高法院外举着反特朗普标语。（亚历克斯·弗罗莱夫斯基/法新社 via 盖蒂图片社）
鉴于一个多世纪以来法院一贯维持出生权公民身份的裁决，特朗普政府面临着一场艰难的战斗。
然而，现任最高法院并不避讳推翻备受瞩目的先例：比如多布斯案推翻罗伊案（堕胎权），以及洛珀案推翻谢弗隆案（行政国家原则）。最高法院决定受理这一议题本身就非常耐人寻味。和往常一样，案件的细节将决定他们以宽泛还是狭隘的尺度裁决此案——或者他们是否会找借口完全回避此案。
我们是如何走到这一步的？
美国宪法第十四修正案第一款规定：“所有在合众国出生或归化合众国并受其管辖的人，都是合众国的和他们居住州的公民。”
[最高法院准备审查特朗普关于出生权公民身份的行政令]
唐纳德·特朗普总统于2026年3月23日在佛罗里达州西棕榈滩的棕榈滩国际机场登上空军一号前，向记者发表讲话。（索尔·洛布 / 法新社 via 盖蒂图片社）
其历史背景：第十四修正案于1868年获得批准，以回应两件事：1）内战结束；2）1857年的德雷德·斯科特案裁决，该裁决认定被奴役者（及其子女）不是美国公民，因此不享有任何权利，也不能在联邦法院起诉等。值得注意的是，密歇根州参议员雅各布·霍华德起草了“受其管辖”条款，并在当时的演讲中表示，该条款不包括“在美国出生的外国人、外侨，以及属于大使或外交部长家属的人”。
为何此事至关重要：在即将到来的辩论中，预计会有大量关于“受其管辖”含义的讨论，尤其是因为1952年随后出台的《移民与国籍法》照搬了第十四修正案的措辞——即公民是指在美国出生并受其管辖的人。
[联邦地区法院裁决在移民、警务等领域阻碍特朗普议程——提升行政权力相关风险]
2025年5月15日，人们在华盛顿特区美国最高法院外举行抗议活动。（马特·麦克莱恩/《华盛顿邮报》 via 盖蒂图片社）
黄金阿克案：1898年美国最高法院裁决确立了我们如今所知的出生权公民身份。该案涉及一名美国出生的华裔成年人，其父母永久定居美国，他在从中国旅行回国后被拒绝重新入境美国。当时，中国公民要成为美国公民通常非常困难。
最高法院在裁决中认定，在美国领土上出生的儿童自动获得公民身份，仅有极少数例外情况，比如外交官员的子女。法院将“受其管辖”解释为受美国法律管辖。
法院的推理是，公民和非公民都受其所在国家的法律约束。法院强调，阿克的父母“永久定居”在美国。这一裁决在当时颇具争议，因为它忽视了最高法院此前的措辞，即外籍父母所生的子女不是公民。然而，在黄金阿克案中，最高法院在判决书中驳回了这一论点，认为此前的措辞不过是“附带意见”，即并非判决必需的语言，因此不具有约束力的先例效力。
[点击此处下载福克斯新闻应用]
核心要点：这是本届最高法院任期内的重磅案件。预计裁决结果将在6月底公布。
凯莉·库佩克·厄班是福克斯新闻的法律编辑兼副总裁。在从事媒体工作之前，凯莉曾在威廉·P·巴尔担任司法部长期间担任司法部公共事务主任。她还曾担任捍卫自由联盟的通讯总监，并曾为弗吉尼亚州上诉法院法官威廉·G·佩蒂担任书记员。
What to know about the Supreme Court’s blockbuster birthright citizenship case
2026-03-30T13:50:09-04:00 / Fox News
Arguments begin this week on Trump’s executive order challenging a constitutional guarantee upheld for over a century
By Kerri Kupec Urbahn Fox News
Published March 30, 2026 1:50pm EDT
Supreme Court to hear arguments in major birthright citizenship case
Constitutional attorney Mark Smith discusses the Supreme Court’s upcoming birthright citizenship case and its potential impact on President Donald Trump’s presidency on ‘Fox Report.’
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
Listen to this article
3 min
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in what could be one of the most significant cases of the 21st century: birthright citizenship.
Before the Court is whether the Trump executive order that ends birthright citizenship complies with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, after multiple judges blocked the order from taking effect as it was litigated.
In plain speak, the Court will look at whether someone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a citizen irrespective of their parents’ status.
ALITO BLASTS LAWYER’S WORD-SALAD BLURRING ASYLUM LAW
Demonstrators holds up an anti-Trump sign outside the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on June 27, 2025.(ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)
Given that courts have routinely upheld birthright citizenship for over a century now, the Trump administration faces an uphill battle.
However, the current Court has not shied away from overturning high-profile decisions: think Dobbs overturning Roe(abortion), and Loper overturning Chevron(the administrative state). The mere fact the Court decided to take up this issue at all is very interesting.As always, the devil will be in the details in terms of how broadly, or narrowly, they decide the case – or if they find some way to punt it altogether.
How did we get here?
The Fourteenth Amendment,Section 1of the Constitution 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.”
[SUPREME COURT PREPARES TO REVIEW TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP]
President Donald Trump walks to speak to reporters before boarding Air Force One at Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach, Florida, on March 23, 2026.(SAUL LOEB / AFP via Getty Images)
Its history: The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 in response to 1) the end of the Civil War and 2) the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which concluded that enslaved people (and their children) were not American citizens and thus had no rights and couldn’t sue in federal court, among other things. Notably, Michigan Senator Jacob Howard wrote the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause and said in speeches at the time that the clause did not include “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
Why this matters: In the upcoming arguments, expect a lot of discussion about what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means, especially because the subsequent Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 mirrors the language of the 14th Amendment – that a citizen is someone who is born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
[DC COURT RULINGS STALL TRUMP AGENDA ACROSS IMMIGRATION, POLICING, FED — RAISING STAKES ON EXECUTIVE POWER]
People demonstrate outside the Supreme Court of the United States on May 15, 2025 in Washington, D.C.(Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Wong Kim Ark: The 1898 U.S. Supreme Court decision that gave us birthright citizenship as we know it today.The case involved the U.S.-born adult child of Chinese nationals – who had been permanently domiciled in the U.S. – who was denied reentry into the U.S. after returning from a trip to China. At the time, it was generally difficult for Chinese nationals to become citizens.
In its decision, the Supreme Court held that children born on U.S. soil are automatically granted citizenship with very few exceptions, such as children of diplomats. It interpreted the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to mean subject to the laws of the U.S.
The Court reasoned that citizens and non-citizens alike are subject to the laws of the nation they are in. The Court emphasized that Ark’s parents were “permanently domiciled” in the U.S. This decision was controversial at the time because it ignored previous Supreme Court language that had found children born to alien parents were not citizens. However, in Wong Kim Ark, the Court dismissed that argument in its opinion, finding that previous language was mere “dicta,” i.e., language that was not necessary to those decisions, and thus, did not create binding precedent.
[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP]
The bottom line:This is the blockbuster case of this Supreme Court term. A decision is expected late June.
Kerri Kupec Urbahn is Legal editor and VP for Fox News. Prior to her work in media, Kerri served as the Director of Public Affairs for the Department of Justice under Attorney General William P. Barr. She also served as Communications Director for Alliance Defending Freedom, and clerked for Court of Appeals of Virginia Judge William G. Petty.
发表回复