2026-03-30T08:34:00-0400 / https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-trump-birthright-citizenship-what-to-know/
华盛顿讯 —— 最高法院将于本周三开庭，审理特朗普总统旨在终止出生公民权的行政令的合法性。
该案是对特朗普移民议程核心支柱的重大考验，也是高等法院首次审理总统一项移民政策的法律依据。
最高法院面前的争议点是，特朗普的出生公民权行政令是否违反了第十四修正案的公民条款，以及将该条款法典化的联邦法律条款。该法规最初于1940年通过《国籍法》颁布，后于1952年在《移民与国籍法》中重新制定。
第十四修正案的公民条款规定：“凡在合众国出生或归化合众国并受其管辖者，均为合众国及所居住之州的公民。”
该案的判决预计将于6月底或7月初公布。如果高等法院作出不利于特朗普政府的裁决，这将是总统第二任期内遭遇的第二次重大失利。今年2月，最高法院以6票对3票的裁决推翻了他根据紧急状态法发布的多项关税措施。
在口头辩论前，特朗普总统称其他国家正在向美国“出售公民身份”，并抨击联邦法院系统“愚蠢”。
他周一在Truth Social上写道：“‘愚蠢的法官和大法官无法造就一个伟大的国家！’”
以下是关于最高法院审理的特朗普诉芭芭拉出生公民权案需了解的内容：
总统的行政令具体内容是什么？
特朗普在第二任期的第一天签署了这项出生公民权行政令。该指令拒绝为两类儿童提供美国公民身份：一类是母亲在美国非法居留，父亲非美国公民或合法永久居民；另一类是母亲拥有合法临时身份，父亲非美国公民或合法永久居民。
根据特朗普的行政令，第十四修正案的公民条款“从未被解释为普遍赋予所有在美国境内出生的人公民身份。第十四修正案历来将那些在美国出生但‘不受其管辖’的人排除在出生公民权之外”。
特朗普的这项措施指示联邦机构不得为那些父母临时或非法留在美国的儿童出具或接受承认其美国公民身份的文件。该行政令适用于其生效之日起30天后出生的婴儿。
然而，该指令尚未生效，因为总统签署后不久其合法性就受到了挑战，并被下级法院叫停。
这项行政令不是已经提交过最高法院了吗？
勉强算是，但最高法院当时并未审理出生公民权行政令的实质内容。此前三起挑战特朗普该指令的案件被合并，在上一任期提交至高等法院，但当时争议的焦点是在全国范围内叫停该政策执行的禁令范围。
当时特朗普政府辩称，下级法院法官无权发布这种全国性救济措施，最高法院同意限制法官发布全国性禁令的权力。
下级法院被要求重新评估其叫停总统出生公民权指令的命令，以确保禁令“不超出必要范围”，只为诉讼原告提供完整救济。
那么这个案件是如何进入最高法院的？
就在最高法院去年6月就全国性禁令作出裁决后不久，美国公民自由联盟及其他组织代表三名原告提起集体诉讼，这些原告去年生下的孩子面临根据特朗普的计划被剥夺公民身份的风险。
他们在诉讼中辩称，该行政令违反了宪法的公民条款以及将该条款语言法典化的《移民与国籍法》条款。
驻新罕布什尔州的美国地区法官约瑟夫·拉普兰特临时认证，所有根据特朗普行政令将被剥夺公民身份的儿童为集体诉讼成员，并阻止政府对他们执行该命令。
特朗普政府就该裁决向美国第一巡回上诉法院提起上诉，同时请求最高法院跳过第一巡回法院，直接审查这项出生公民权政策。
最高法院去年12月表示将受理此案，并对特朗普指令的合法性作出裁决。
迄今为止，所有审理过对出生公民权令质疑的下级法院都未采纳特朗普政府对第十四修正案公民条款的解释。
最高法院此前是否审理过出生公民权案件？
是的，早在一个多世纪前就有过。1898年的“美国诉黄金德案”是在第十四修正案批准30年后作出的裁决，最高法院确认了出生即获得公民身份的原则，但为外国外交官的子女、占领敌军成员和美洲原住民部落成员设定了有限例外。
该案涉及一名叫黄金德的加州男子，他1873年出生于旧金山，父母为中国公民但已在美国定居。
1894年，黄金德前往中国探望父母和家人，1895年返回美国时，他被拒绝入境，理由是他不是美国公民，因此根据《排华法案》不得进入美国。
最高法院面前的问题是，父母为华裔且在美国“永久定居和居住”的在美国出生的儿童，是否根据第十四修正案享有公民身份。
在大法官霍勒斯·格雷撰写的判决意见中，最高法院以6票对2票的表决结果认定，黄金德因在美国出生而享有第十四修正案规定的公民身份。
特朗普政府持何种立场？
特朗普政府敦促最高法院支持特朗普的行政令。其称，第十四修正案并未赋予父母非法或临时留在美国的儿童公民身份，比如那些通过免签计划入境、持学生或工作签证留在美国的人的子女。
美国副检察长D.约翰·佐尔表示，该条款仅保障那些“完全受”美国政治管辖的人享有公民身份，即他们对美国负有“直接和即时的效忠义务”，并可要求美国提供保护。
对于持临时身份留在美国的人，佐尔辩称，他们的子女与美国没有足够的联系，而且不太可能建立这种联系，因为他们的父母 presumably会返回本国。对于无证移民，他表示，他们本身就违反了法律，这种违抗行为“与建立必要的效忠义务相悖”。
佐尔写道，最高法院在黄金德案中的裁决承认，第十四修正案为在美国出生的公民和拥有“永久定居和居住”——即固定永久居所——的外国国民的子女提供公民身份。他声称，自20世纪中期以来，行政部门一直“误读”了公民条款。
他表示，这种错误解读“极大地 incentivized 了非法进入美国的行为，并鼓励‘生育游客’专程前往美国为子女获取公民身份”。
佐尔在提交给最高法院的文件中辩称，特朗普的行政令旨在纠正这种“误读”，并解决出生公民权引发的诸多问题，包括非法移民到美国、国家安全和公共安全风险，以及“生育旅游”的兴起。
他声称，为无证移民和临时留在美国的人的子女提供出生公民权“贬低了美国公民身份的意义和价值”。
“外国人可以通过违反美国移民法——并排在遵守法律的其他人之前——为他们的子女获得美国公民身份这一无价的馈赠，”佐尔说。“这些外国人随后可以为自己获得衍生福利，包括以其子女的公民身份为由避免被驱逐出境。”
关于该行政令是否违反联邦移民法的问题，特朗普政府表示，其合法性取决于公民条款的实际含义，而非国会在1940年和1952年的理解。佐尔辩称，国会在《移民与国籍法》中使用了第十四修正案中的“受其管辖”一词，就纳入了宪法中的含义。
美国公民自由联盟和原告方持何种立场？
在提交给最高法院的文件中，受特朗普行政令影响的儿童的律师辩称，第十四修正案保障基于出生的公民身份，无论其父母的移民身份、国籍或居所如何，仅存在少数例外情况。
“政府所要求的无异于重塑我们国家的宪法基础，”他们写道。“该命令可能形式上具有前瞻性，适用于每月出生的数万名儿童，并给全国各地的家庭带来毁灭性打击。但更糟糕的是，如果政府毫无根据的论点被采纳，将给数百万美国人的公民身份蒙上阴影，其影响可追溯至几代人之前。”
挑战特朗普该命令的美国公民自由联盟及其他组织表示，根据英国普通法，公民身份的规则是出生即获得，对于外国籍父母在美国出生的儿童，不存在居所要求。他们辩称，“受其管辖”一词意味着受美国法律管辖。
原告方援引了1844年纽约衡平法院在林奇诉克拉克案中的裁决，这是最早涉及出生公民权概念的案件之一。在该案中，州法院维持了一名在纽约出生的爱尔兰父母所生子女的美国公民身份，当时父母“只是临时逗留”，并认定“凡在合众国管辖和效忠范围内出生的人，无论其父母处境如何，均为天然公民”。
54年后的黄金德案中，最高法院承认了“几乎所有外国国民”在美国出生的子女的公民身份。
美国公民自由联盟辩称，特朗普政府试图推翻这项已有128年历史的裁决，但并未提供“充分理由”。
“如果政府抱怨出生公民权是吸引移民来到这个国家的原因之一，那这不过是建国者们所接纳的美国生活诸多特征之一，与自由和平等并列，”该组织表示。“他们故意选择了一项适用于移民子女的规则，而这一选择——载入宪法并反映了我们的国家价值观——是美国文化和社会的支柱。”
原告方表示，如果特朗普政府认为应该改变出生公民权政策，应该提出宪法修正案。
关于出生公民权行政令是否违反联邦移民法的问题，原告方表示确实违反，因为国会在1940年和1952年理解到，“受其管辖”一词纳入了普通法下的出生公民权规则。
最高法院可能作出何种裁决？
高等法院可以在宪法和法律依据两方面维持该命令。也可能作出相反裁决，将其推翻。
如果最高法院作出不利于特朗普政府的裁决，它可以认定该政策违反联邦移民法，并可能拒绝讨论其是否符合第十四修正案的公民条款。
若作出有利于总统的裁决，对父母非法或临时留在美国的出生儿童意味着什么？
特朗普政府表示，该行政令具有前瞻性，指示联邦机构不为其生效之日起30天后出生的婴儿出具公民身份文件。
尽管该指令仍处于叫停状态，但美国公民及移民服务局和社会保障管理局去年7月发布了指南，说明该命令将如何适用于不同类别的移民，以及个人如何证明其公民身份。
尽管政府声称总统的行政令具有前瞻性，但美国公民自由联盟表示，这对数百万美国人来说“毫无慰藉”，因为特朗普政府声称他们不符合第十四修正案规定的公民身份资格。
“该命令可能具有前瞻性，但政府提出的解释将是一场宪法革命的开始，而非结束，这场革命将以无数方式蔓延——其中一些可以预见，另一些可能无法预见，”该组织写道。
超过200名民主党议员组成的团体同样警告称，如果特朗普政府在最高法院胜诉，“数百万美国人将突然不再是公民”，因为他们不再符合宪法和联邦法律规定的公民身份标准。民主党人表示，因此他们将被剥夺投票权、无法获得护照等诸多权利。
“政府不能通过宣布（目前）将这些前美国人视为公民，给予他们法律禁止他们享有的福利，来改变这一点，”他们在一份法庭之友简报中写道。
The Supreme Court will weigh Trump’s birthright citizenship order this week. Here’s what to know about the case.
2026-03-30T08:34:00-0400 / https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-trump-birthright-citizenship-what-to-know/
Washington — The Supreme Court is set to convene Wednesday to consider the legality of President Trump’s executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship.
The case is a major test of a key pillar of Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda and is the first in which the high court will weigh the legal merits of one of the president’s immigration policies.
The question before the Supreme Court is whether the president’s executive order on birthright citizenship violates the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment and a provision of federal law that codified that clause. That statute was first enacted through the Nationality Act in 1940 and then reenacted in the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1952.
The Citizenship Clause states that “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.”
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June or early July. If the high court rules against the Trump administration, it would mark the second major loss for the president in his second term. In a 6-3 decision in February, the Supreme Court struck down many of his tariffs issued under an emergency powers law.
Ahead of the arguments, President Trump claimed that other countries are “selling citizenships” to the U.S., and attacked the federal court system as “stupid.”
“‘Dumb Judges and Justices will not a great Country make!’” he wrote on Truth Social on Monday.
Here is what to know about Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case before the Supreme Court:
What does the president’s executive order do?
Mr. Trump signed his executive order on birthright citizenship on the first day of his second term. The directive denies U.S. citizenship to children born to a mother in the country unlawfully and a father who is either not a citizen or a lawful permanent resident; or to a mother who has lawful temporary status and a father who is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident.
According to Mr. Trump’s executive order, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”
Mr. Trump’s measure directs federal agencies not to issue or accept documents recognizing U.S. citizenship to children whose parents are in the U.S. temporarily or unlawfully. The executive order applies to babies born more than 30 days after the date it takes effect.
The directive, however, hasn’t yet become effective since its legality was challenged soon after it was signed by the president and it’s been blocked by lower courts.
Hasn’t the executive order already been before the Supreme Court?
Sort of, though the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the birthright citizenship executive order. Three different cases that challenged Mr. Trump’s directive, which were consolidated, were before the high court in its last term, but the issue was the scope of injunctions that blocked enforcement of the policy nationwide.
The Trump administration had argued then that lower court judges do not have the power to impose that universal relief, and the Supreme Court agreed to curtail judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions.
Lower courts were directed to reevaluate their orders blocking the president’s birthright citizenship directive to ensure the injunctions weren’t “broader than necessary” to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs that sued.
So how did this case get to the Supreme Court?
On the heels of that Supreme Court decision last June on nationwide injunctions, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of three plaintiffs who had children last year who were at risk of being denied citizenship under Mr. Trump’s plan.
They argued in their lawsuit that the executive order violates the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause and the provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that codified the clause’s language.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante, who sits in New Hampshire, provisionally certified as a class all children who would be denied citizenship under Mr. Trump’s executive order and blocked the administration from enforcing the order against them.
The Trump administration appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, but also asked the Supreme Court to leapfrog the 1st Circuit and go straight to reviewing the birthright citizenship policy.
The high court said in December it would take up the case and decide the legality of Mr. Trump’s directive.
No lower court that has considered challenges to the birthright citizenship order has embraced the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
Has the Supreme Court considered citizenship by birth before?
Yes, more than a century ago. In the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, decided 30 years after the 14th Amendment’s ratification, the Supreme Court affirmed the rule of citizenship by birth, with limited exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats, occupying enemies and members of Native American tribes.
The case involved a California man named Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873 to parents who were Chinese citizens but had resided in the United States.
In 1894, Wong Kim Ark visited his parents and family in China and, upon his return to the U.S. in 1895, was denied entry back into the country on the grounds that he was not a citizen and therefore prohibited from coming into the U.S. under the Chinese Exclusion Acts.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether a child born in the U.S. to parents of Chinese descent who have a “permanent domicil and residence” in the U.S. is a citizen under the 14th Amendment.
In an opinion authorized by Justice Horace Gray, the Supreme Court split 6-2 in finding that the 14th Amendment granted Wong Kim Ark citizenship because he was born in the U.S.
What does the Trump administration say?
The Trump administration is urging the Supreme Court to uphold Mr. Trump’s executive order. The 14th Amendment, it said, does not grant citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily, like those in the U.S. through the Visa Waiver Program or with student or work visas.
Instead, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the clause guarantees citizenship only to those who are “completely subject” to the nation’s political jurisdiction, meaning they owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and may claim its protection.
For people in the U.S. with temporary status, Sauer argued that their children don’t have sufficient ties to the U.S. and are unlikely to develop them since their parents will presumably return to their home countries. For undocumented immigrants, he said that they’re by definition in violation of the law, and that defiance is “inconsistent with establishing the requisite allegiance” to the U.S.
Sauer wrote that the Supreme Court’s decision in Wong Kim Ark recognized that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to children born in the U.S. to citizens and foreign nationals with a “permanent domicil and residence” — or a fixed and permanent home — in the country. He claimed the executive branch has “misread” the Citizenship Clause since the mid-20th Century.
That misinterpretation has “powerfully incentivized illegal entry into the United States and encouraged ‘birth tourists’ to travel to the United States solely to acquire citizenship for their children,” he said.
Sauer argued in Supreme Court filings that Mr. Trump’s executive order seeks to correct that “misreading” and address several problems that have arisen as a result of birthright citizenship, including illegal migration to the U.S.; national security and public safety risks, and the rise of “birth tourism.”
Birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and people in the U.S. temporarily “degrades the meaning and value of American citizenship,” he claimed.
“Aliens could obtain the priceless gift of U.S. citizenship for their children by violating the United States’ immigration laws — and by jumping in line ahead of others who are complying with the law,” Sauer said. “Such aliens could then obtain derivative benefits for themselves, including by asserting their children’s citizenship as a basis for avoiding their own removal.”
On the question of whether the executive order violates federal immigration law, the Trump administration said its scope depends on what the Citizenship Clause actually means, not what Congress thought it meant in 1940 and 1952. By using the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” from the 14th Amendment in the Immigration and Nationality Act, Congress incorporated the meaning from the Constitution, Sauer argued.
What do the ACLU and plaintiffs say?
In their own filings with the Supreme Court, lawyers for the children who would be impacted by Mr. Trump’s executive order argued that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship based on birth, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, nationality or domicile, with narrow exceptions.
“The government is asking for nothing less than a remaking of our Nation’s constitutional foundations,” they wrote. “The Order may be formally prospective, applying to tens of thousands of children born every month, and devastating families around the country. But worse yet, the government’s baseless arguments — if accepted — would cast a shadow over the citizenship of millions upon millions of Americans, going back generations.”
The ACLU and other groups challenging Mr. Trump’s order said that under the English common law, the rule was citizenship by birth, and there is no domicile requirement for children born in the U.S. to foreign-national parents. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” means subject to U.S. law, they argued.
The plaintiffs cited a 1844 decision from the New York Court of Chancery in the case Lynch v. Clarke, which was one of the first to address the concept of citizenship by birth. In that case, the state court upheld the U.S. citizenship of a child born in New York to Irish parents “during their temporary sojourn” and found that “every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.”
Fifty-four years later in Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court recognized the citizenship of children born in the U.S. to “virtually all foreign nationals.”
The ACLU argued that the Trump administration is seeking to disturb that 128-year-old decision but provides “no good reason” for doing so.
“To the extent the government’s complaint is that birthright citizenship is part of what draws immigrants to this country, that is simply one of many features of American life that the Framers embraced, alongside freedom and equality,” the group said. “They deliberately chose a rule that would apply to the children of immigrants, and that choice — enshrined in the Constitution and reflective of our national values — is a pillar of American culture and society.”
The plaintiffs said that if the Trump administration believes birthright citizenship should be changed, it should propose a constitutional amendment.
As to whether the birthright citizenship executive order violates federal immigration law, the plaintiffs said that it does because Congress in 1940 and 1952 understood that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” incorporated the common-law rule of citizenship by birth.
How could the Supreme Court rule?
The high court could uphold the order on both the constitutional and statutory grounds. It could also go the other way and strike it down.
If the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration, it could find the policy violates federal immigration law and may decline to address whether it complies with the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
What would a decision in favor of the president mean for people born to parents in the country illegally or temporarily?
The Trump administration has said that the executive order is prospective and directs federal agencies not to issue citizenship documents for babies born more than 30 days after it takes effect.
Though the directive remains blocked, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration issued guidance last July on how the order would apply to different categories of immigrants and how individuals could prove their citizenship.
While the government claims the president’s executive order is prospective, the ACLU said that is “cold comfort” for millions of American citizens who the Trump administration claims don’t qualify for citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
“The Order may be prospective, but the interpretation the government advances would be the beginning, not the end, of a constitutional revolution rippling out in innumerable ways — some of which can be anticipated, others perhaps not,” the group wrote.
A group of more than 200 Democratic members of Congress similarly warned that if the Trump administration prevails before the Supreme Court, “millions of Americans will suddenly no longer be citizens” because they no longer meet the criteria for citizenship under the Constitution and federal law. As a result, they’ll be barred from voting, obtaining passports and more, the Democrats said.
“The Administration cannot change that by announcing that it will (for now) treat those erstwhile Americans as if they were citizens, giving them benefits the law forbids them to have,” they wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief.