2026年3月30日 美国东部时间上午11:50 / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：琼·比斯库皮奇，CNN首席最高法院分析师
出生公民权倡导者正呼吁在教育资金、宗教仪式展示及多项政府政策争议中偏袒宗教利益的天主教占多数的最高法院。
Rodica Cojocaru / 500px/Getty Images
在最高法院审议出生公民权未来走向之际，一些与唐纳德·特朗普总统政策对抗的倡导者直接向保守派大法官阐明，信仰对身份认同与公民身份有着何等根本性的意义。
多个在本案中提交法庭之友意见书的团体提及欢迎异乡人的道德必要性（并引用了圣经经文），同时提请注意，如果特朗普政府限制《第十四修正案》中“所有在美国出生的儿童均为公民”的保障条款，信徒可能会面临何种实际困境。
他们正是针对这个天主教占多数的法院发声——该法院此前在多起争议中偏袒宗教利益。
跨意识形态阵营的众多法律分析师都认为，特朗普在此问题上的主张过于激进，注定会失败。但最高法院此前已对特朗普大胆议程中的其他部分持接纳态度，移民权益倡导者及其他挑战者提出了多种论点，其中包括与宗教相关的论据。
相关报道
最高法院将审议出生公民权的未来。以下是他们的家人如何来到美国 阅读时长：11分钟
服务弱势青少年的“卢梭计划”的律师辩称，大法官们应当考虑那些无法证明亲子关系与公民身份的儿童。其中包括一些出生于阿米什门诺派等规避正式出生证明的宗教教派的婴儿。
“卢梭计划”主张，如果特朗普政府的主张胜诉，这类宗教家庭将被迫“在宗教自由行使权与出生公民权之间做出抉择”。
该意见书的首席律师伊兰·罗森伯格还提及大法官们近期对“安全避风港法”的关注——该法律有时被视为堕胎的替代方案，“卢梭计划”聚焦于被遗弃的新生儿。
他援引了艾米·科尼·巴雷特大法官2022年在“多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案”口头辩论中的表态：“在全美50个州，你可以通过在分娩后放弃孩子，或将孩子留在医院或消防站，来终止父母权利。”
罗森伯格告诉大法官们，根据安全避风港法匿名送交的孩子“永远无法证明政府依据《第十四修正案》提出的公民身份必备条件：其父母的公民身份”。
最高法院在“多布斯案”中推翻了1973年“罗诉韦德案”所确立的堕胎宪法权利。
最高法院多数派近年来在其他案件中日益偏向宗教保守派，包括支持公立学校橄榄球比赛中场教练的祈祷、扩大宗派教育的州级资助，以及保留政府财产上的基督教象征物。
其中一份意见书强调，美国殖民地正是由因宗教习俗被迫害的人建立的。
相关报道
当地时间1月23日，众议员布莱恩·巴宾（左）与众议员安迪·比格斯一同在国会山回应外界有关《出生公民权法案》的提问。罗德·莱姆基·小/美联社 出生公民权：为何“属地主义”在美洲如此重要 阅读时长：6分钟
“出生公民权被载入《第十四修正案》，”由57个信仰组织组成的团体写道，“与美国作为宗教迫害避难所的历史有着深刻联系，包括许多法庭之友信仰团体的先辈与当前成员。十三个殖民地中有多个是由贵格会等因宗教迫害出逃或寻求宗教自由的团体建立的。”
除贵格会总会议之外，签署该意见书的组织还包括浸信会联盟、美国犹太人委员会、美国伊斯兰关系委员会、全国基督教协进会以及一神论普救服务委员会。
反移民“一无所知党”为何在此议题中至关重要
这类带有宗教色彩的意见书，是特朗普诉芭芭拉案中超过60份“法庭之友”意见书的一部分。该案旨在解释《第十四修正案》中“凡在合众国出生或归化合众国并受其管辖的人，均为合众国的公民”这一条款的含义。
其中约三分之二的法庭之友意见书支持挑战者一方。他们辩称，《第十四修正案》的历史与法院先例实际上确立了不受限制的出生公民权。
特朗普的律师抓住“受其管辖”这一短语，辩称任何非法或暂时在美国境内的人（例如持学生签证者）都不完全受美国司法管辖。
相关报道
2025年5月15日周四，人们与卡萨组织一同在华盛顿特区美国最高法院外示威。最高法院当日就下级法院能否阻止唐纳德·特朗普总统终结出生公民权的政策举行听证会。马特·麦克莱恩/《华盛顿邮报》/盖蒂图片 最高法院有关出生公民权的争议可能引发“混乱”：新生儿身份举证难题 阅读时长：7分钟
一些支持特朗普政府的团体就《第十四修正案》的历史与传统提出了另类解读。其中一份带有宗教主题的意见书来自佛罗里达基督教家庭联盟。该联盟辩称，为“非法移民和暂住者”赋予出生公民权，将吸引那些宣扬宗教偏执的人。
下级法院法官裁定特朗普限制出生公民权的举措违宪，认为其违反了《第十四修正案》的文本，并与1898年的里程碑式判决相悖。在“美国诉黄金阿克案”中，法院裁定一名在美国出生的中国公民之子为美国公民。
许多支持挑战者的法庭之友意见书都强化了有关《第十四修正案》悠久历史与传统的论点。
挑战者提交的各类涉及宗教的意见书中，有一个颇具争议的论点，回顾了19世纪中期“一无所知党”的反天主教与反移民敌意。
这份由历史学家泰勒·安宾德牵头的意见书辩称，尽管当时“一无所知党”拥有强大的政治影响力，但该党接受了出生公民权，甚至从未提议限制他们想要驱逐的移民子女的公民身份。
“（特朗普）政府要求法院采纳的立场，就连‘一无所知党’——美国历史上最成功、最极端的反移民政治运动——都从未寻求过：根据孩子父母的政治效忠限制出生公民权，”历史学与法学教授们写道。
“我当时是个寄居者，你们收留了我”
此外，由57个信仰组织提交的意见书涵盖了天主教徒、新教徒、穆斯林、印度教徒与犹太教徒，其中提及了欢迎异乡人的宗教传统。
例如，该意见书指出：“在基督教中，《新约》教导说：‘我饿了，你们给我吃；我渴了，你们给我喝；我当时是个寄居者，你们收留了我。’《马太福音》25:35。”
布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官在2018年确认听证会上特意提及了《马太福音》中的这段经文，他在开场时对参议员们表示：“我牢记《马太福音》25章的教诲，努力为我们当中最不幸的人服务。”
相关报道
2026年2月24日，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨、大法官埃琳娜·卡根、布雷特·卡瓦诺与艾米·科尼·巴雷特出席美国国会山的国情咨文演讲。奇普·索莫德夫斯基/盖蒂图片 最高法院人人都能发声。为何关税案判决长达160多页 阅读时长：6分钟
在充满争议的参议院确认听证会结束后，卡瓦诺在白宫的一场仪式上再次提及《马太福音》。“在参议院确认听证会之后，我对待生活的态度依然不变。我将继续遵循《马太福音》25章的教诲，继续志愿服务，为我们当中最不幸的人服务。”
保守派阵营的六名大法官均为天主教徒或在天主教家庭长大，卡瓦诺便是其中之一。其余五人分别是首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨、大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯、塞缪尔·阿利托与艾米·科尼·巴雷特；尼尔·戈萨奇在天主教家庭长大，目前为圣公会教徒。
第七名天主教大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔与犹太裔大法官埃琳娜·卡根、新教徒凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊一同组成了自由派阵营。
在天主教大法官占据多数的背景下，美国天主教主教会议的律师提交了一份措辞强硬的意见书，论证特朗普限制出生公民权行政令的不道德性。
“该行政令的预期与非预期后果，”天主教主教会议的意见书称，“都是不道德的，违背了天主教会关于人类生命与尊严、对待弱势群体——尤其是移民与儿童——以及家庭团结的基本信仰与教义。”
Immigration advocates appeal to a higher power to sway the high court on birthright citizenship
2026-03-30 11:50 AM ET / CNN
By Joan Biskupic, CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst
Birthright citizenship advocates are appealing to a Catholic Supreme Court majority that has favored religious interests in disputes over education funding, Christian displays and various government policies.
Rodica Cojocaru / 500px/Getty Images
As the Supreme Court considers the future of birthright citizenship, some advocates fighting President Donald Trump are speaking directly to conservative justices on how fundamental one’s faith can be to identity and citizenship.
Several groups that have filed briefs in the case to be argued Wednesday refer to the moral imperative of welcoming strangers (with references to scripture) and call attention to the kind of practical dilemmas believers might face if the Trump administration restricted the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee that all children born in the US are citizens.
They are addressing a Catholic court majority that has favored religious interests in disputes over education funding, Christian displays and various government policies.
Many legal analysts across the ideological spectrum believe Trump’s ideas here are radical and bound to fail. But the high court has been receptive to other elements of Trump’s bold agenda, and immigrant-rights advocates and other challengers have brought forth a variety of arguments, including related to religion.
Related article
Supreme Court justices will consider the future of birthright citizenship. Here’s how their families came to America 11 min read
Lawyers for Project Rousseau, which serves vulnerable young people, argues that the justices should consider children who are unable to prove their parenthood and citizenship. That would include some babies born to members of religious sects, such as the Amish and Mennonites, that shun formal birth documents.
If the Trump administration prevails, Project Rousseau contends, such religious families would be forced “to decide between their Free Exercise rights and their birthright citizenship rights.”
Ilan Rosenberg, lead counsel on the brief, also invoked the justices’ recent interest in “Safe Haven Laws,” sometimes seen as an alternative to abortion, as the group focused on babies abandoned at birth.
He quoted Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s observation from 2022 oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that “in all 50 states, you can terminate parental rights by relinquishing a child” after birth and perhaps leaving the child at a hospital or fire station.
Rosenberg told the justices that a child anonymously surrendered under a Safe Haven Law, “would never be able to prove what the government proposes as essential to citizenship under the 14th Amendment: the citizenship status of his parents.”
The Supreme Court in Dobbs reversed the constitutional right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973’s Roe v. Wade decision.
The court’s majority has increasingly sided with religious conservatives elsewhere, including to uphold a coach’s prayer at public school football games, to expand state funding of sectarian education and to keep Christian symbols on government property.
One brief spotlights that the American colonies were established by people fleeing persecution for their religious practices.
Related article
Rep. Brian Babin, left, is joined by Rep. Andy Biggs, right, as they respond to questions regarding the Birthright Citizenship Act at the Capitol on January 23. Rod Lamkey, Jr./AP Birthright citizenship: Why the ‘right of soil’ is so big in the Americas 6 min read
“The enshrinement of birthright citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment,” wrote a group of 57 faith-based organizations, “has a deep connection with the Nation’s history as a haven for those escaping religious persecution, including the forebearers and current members of many of amici’s faith groups. Several of the Thirteen Colonies were founded by groups, such as Quakers, escaping religious persecution or seeking to secure religious freedom.”
Among the organizations that joined the brief, in addition to the Friends General Conference (Quaker), are the Alliance of Baptists, American Jewish Committee, Council on American-Islamic Relations, National Council of Churches, and the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee.
Why the anti-immigrant ‘Know-Nothings’ are important here
Such religiously imbued briefs are among more than 60 “friend of the court” filings in the case of Trump v. Barbara testing the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, which dictates that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
About two-thirds of those amicus curiae briefs support the challengers. They contend the Fourteenth Amendment’s history and court precedent entrenched virtually unrestricted birthright citizenship.
Trump’s lawyers have fastened onto the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” and contend that anyone in the country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on a student visa, is not completely subject to US jurisdiction.
Related article
People demonstrate with CASA outside the Supreme Court of the United States on Thursday May 15, 2025 in Washington, DC. The court is hearing arguments about lower courts ability to block President Donald Trump’s policy to end birthright citizenship. Matt McClain/The Washington Post/Getty Images Supreme Court fight over birthright citizenship threatens ‘chaos’ in proving newborns’ status 7 min read
Some groups joining the Trump administration have offered alternative interpretations of the history and tradition of the Fourteenth Amendment. One filing with a religious theme came from the Christian Family Coalition of Florida. It contended that allowing birthright citizenship for “illegal aliens and transients” would invite people who promote religious bigotry.
Lower court judges ruled against the Trump move to limit birthright citizenship, finding that it breached the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and conflicts with an 1898 milestone. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court ruled that a man who was born of Chinese citizens living in the United States was a US citizen.
Many of the amicus curiae briefs fighting Trump reinforce arguments regarding the longstanding history and tradition of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Among the various briefs touching on religion from the challengers is a provocative argument recalling the anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant hostility of the Know Nothings in the mid-1800s.
The brief, led by historian Tyler Anbinder, contends that despite the significant political power of the Know Nothings at the time, the group accepted birthright citizenship and never proposed limiting it even for children of the immigrants they wanted deported.
“(T)he Government asks the Court to adopt a position that even the Know Nothings – the most successful, most extreme anti-immigrant political movement in American history – never sought: to restrict birthright citizenship based on the political allegiance of a child’s parent,” the history and law professors wrote.
‘I was a stranger and you took Me in’
Separately, the brief filed by 57 faith-based organizations covering Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus and Jews, points to the religious tradition of welcoming strangers.
“In Christianity,” this brief says, for example, “the New Testament teaches, ‘For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in.’ Matthew 25:35.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointedly called attention to the Biblical message of Matthew during his 2018 confirmation hearings, telling senators at the outset, “I keep in mind the message of Matthew 25 and try to serve the least fortunate among us.”
Related article
Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett attend the State of the Union address at the US Capitol on February 24, 2026. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Everyone has something to say at the Supreme Court. Why the tariffs ruling had more than 160 pages 6 min read
After his contentious Senate hearings, Kavanaugh at a White House ceremony again referred to the Gospel of Matthew. “In the wake of the Senate confirmation process, my approach to life also remains the same. I will continue to heed the message of Matthew 25. I will continue to volunteer and serve the least fortunate among us.”
Kavanaugh is one of six justices on the conservative wing who are practicing Catholics or were raised Catholic. The others are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett; Neil Gorsuch was raised Catholic and is now an Episcopalian.
A seventh Catholic justice, Sonia Sotomayor, anchors the liberal wing with Elena Kagan, a Jewish justice, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Protestant.
Against that heavily Catholic backdrop, lawyers for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops submitted a forceful brief arguing the immorality of Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship.
“The intended and unintended effects of the Executive Order,” the Catholic Bishops’ brief asserts, “are immoral and contrary to the Catholic Church’s fundamental beliefs and teachings regarding the life and dignity of human persons, the treatment of vulnerable people — particularly migrants and children — and family unity.”
