2026-03-31T06:00:06-0400 / https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-trump-v-barbara/
华盛顿讯——美国最高法院周三将审理特朗普总统终结出生公民权的行政令是否符合宪法和法律标准的案件，这一案件将检验总统第二任期移民议程的关键内容。
这起被称为“特朗普诉芭芭拉”的案件争议焦点在于，特朗普重返白宫首日发布的行政令是否符合美国宪法第十四修正案公民条款及联邦移民法。
这一争议提交至最高法院之际，保守派占多数的最高法院已在多起特朗普移民政策案件中初步胜诉，允许部分政策在法律诉讼继续期间生效。但出生公民权行政令的反对者希望大法官们能在本案中驳回特朗普，尤其是在最高法院2月驳回特朗普最全面的关税措施之后。
特朗普在该裁决后谴责了最高法院，抨击他任命并投票否决关税措施的两名保守派大法官“对国家不利”。特朗普可能已在为这场出生公民权案件的败诉做准备，他上月在Truth Social平台上写道，最高法院“会设法得出错误结论”。
“最高法院在影子案卷上出现了一系列不祥但无法解释的裁决后，已经开始反击，”民主卫士基金联合创始人诺姆·艾森说道，该基金与美国公民自由联盟共同担任出生公民权案件的联合辩护律师。“如今我们在国民警卫队案件或关税案件等中看到了最终裁决，最高法院正与初审和上诉法院一道阻止唐纳德·特朗普的非法行为，在出生公民权问题上他们也应该如此。”
关于出生公民权的法律之争
第十四修正案于1868年内战结束后通过，旨在否认最高法院臭名昭著的德雷德·斯科特案裁决。该修正案规定：“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。”国会分别于1940年和1952年在《国籍法》和《移民与国籍法》中对该条款进行了编纂。
一个多世纪以来，第十四修正案被广泛理解为几乎将公民身份赋予所有在美国本土出生的婴儿，仅存在极少数例外情况。但特朗普的行政令采取了更狭隘的解读。特朗普政府辩称，该修正案并未将公民身份授予父母非法居留或暂时居留美国的儿童，例如持学生或工作签证的人士，或获得特定居留和工作保护的人士。
特朗普的行政令尚未生效，因为所有审理过该案的下级法院均认定该行政令可能违宪。在最高法院审理的这起争议中，三名子女将因该行政令被剥夺公民身份的原告于去年7月提起集体诉讼，请求阻止该行政令生效。美国地区法官约瑟夫·拉普兰特作出了有利于原告的裁决，最高法院于12月同意绕过上诉法院，直接审查特朗普这项措施的合法性。
在提交给最高法院的文件中，副检察长D.约翰·索尔辩称，第十四修正案旨在赋予被解放的奴隶及其子女公民身份，而非父母无合法身份或暂时留在美国的婴儿。
他表示，一个多世纪以来对宪法保障出生公民权的解读被错误应用，特朗普总统如今正试图纠正这一“误读”。
索尔辩称，由于这种普遍的出生公民权观点，已有“数十万人不符合公民身份资格却获得了公民身份”。他称，这种误读“有力地助长”了美国的非法移民，并助长了“生育旅游”——即怀孕母亲来到美国为孩子获取美国公民身份。
“为非法移民和短期居留外国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，”索尔说道。
在法庭文件中，双方及支持他们的法律学者就“受其管辖”这一短语提出了相互对立的定义，双方均声称自己的解读有历史依据。
根据特朗普政府的观点，只有“完全受国家政治管辖”——即那些对美国负有“直接和直接效忠”义务并可要求美国保护的人——才能获得公民身份。索尔表示，非法移民或临时居留者的子女无法达到这一标准。
“问题在于你的父母是否完全处于主权国家的保护之下，根据这一观点，临时访客和非法居留的外国人被排除在外是有道理的，”明尼苏达大学法学教授伊兰·沃曼说道。沃曼认为，第十四修正案的历史支持特朗普的行政令。
但原告方律师辩称，“受其管辖”意味着受美国法律管辖。他们表示，公民条款仅为外交官子女、入侵敌军以及出生在印第安部落的婴儿保留了一小部分例外情况。
“出生公民权是我们国家身份的根本，已被写入宪法，”美国公民自由联盟移民权利项目副主任科迪·沃夫西说道。“特朗普政府的行政令试图根据父母身份剥夺每月出生的数万名婴儿的这项权利，但宪法并非如此规定，我们在美国决定公民身份也不是这样的标准。”
关于出生公民权保障的争议在保守派法律学者中引发了辩论，其中一些人声称长期以来对第十四修正案的理解是错误的。
“行政部门首先需要解释法律，且不受后来出现的错误传统智慧约束，”沃曼说道。“这是行政部门进行路线修正的尝试。”
政府表示，最初人们理解第十四修正案将公民身份扩展到美国公民的子女以及在美国拥有“永久住所和居所”的外国国民。索尔写道，最高法院1898年“美国诉黄金德案”的裁决支持了这一观点。
该案涉及一名名叫黄金德的加州男子，其父母为中国公民，这是最高法院首次审理公民条款的含义。大法官以6票对2票裁决，黄金德因在美国出生而获得公民身份。索尔指出，法院在判决中多次提及黄金德的父母是美国的永久居民。
美国公民自由联盟和特朗普行政令的反对者声称，总统试图改写既定法律。他们表示，第十四修正案的制定者在宪法中保留了英国普通法的出生公民权规则，而这一理解在“黄金德案”中得到了最高法院的巩固。
“当第十四修正案的制定者起草我们如今看到的措辞时，他们是在确立一项早已存在的法律规则：如果移民的子女出生在美国，他们就是美国公民，无论父母的国籍、居留时间或移民身份如何，”沃夫西说道。
除宪法条款外，他指出，国会分别在1940年和1952年将同样的规则写入法律，这本身就使特朗普的行政令非法。
他们还驳斥了公民条款要求父母为永久居民的说法，并表示如果第十四修正案的制定者想要施加所谓的居所要求，他们会明确说明。
纳入“美国民主阵营”
移民政策研究所和宾夕法尼亚州立大学人口研究所估计，特朗普的行政令每年将影响超过25万名新生儿。特朗普政府表示，该指令具有前瞻性。根据该政策，联邦机构被指示不得为行政令生效后出生超过30天的婴儿颁发公民身份文件。
但原告方警告称，如果最高法院采纳特朗普政府对公民条款的解读，将对数百万美国人的公民身份投下阴影。
“如果本案中支持政府的裁决得以作出，将为更多针对除本案目标群体之外的公民身份质疑打开大门，”沃夫西说道。“这在当下的文化中已经是一个恶劣的现象，但这会将其推向极致，宣告对其他美国人公民身份的质疑全面合法化。”
在一份法庭之友意见书中，来自23个州和哥伦比亚特区的民主党总检察长警告称，特朗普的行政令将给各州带来沉重的行政负担，并危及数百万美元的联邦资金。
“出生公民权背后的原因之一，是将在美国出生的人纳入美国民主阵营，使他们成为公民，使他们有资格投票并决定我们国家的未来，使他们有资格担任陪审员并参与这项极为民主的同伴陪审团职责，让他们有可能竞选公职，使他们成为参与我们民主的公民，”加利福尼亚州总检察长罗布·邦塔说道。“如果这一切都被剥夺，那么载入美国宪法的这种社会契约也就不复存在了。”
邦塔估计，特朗普的政策每年将剥夺加利福尼亚州出生的2万至2.4万名婴儿的公民身份，使他们无法享受联邦资助的项目。因此，各州将损失来自医疗补助或儿童健康保险计划等项目的联邦资金。
“如果这项裁决得到美国最高法院的支持，将有各种成本被转嫁到各州身上，”他说道。
最高法院的裁决预计将于6月底或7月初作出。
Supreme Court to weigh Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship in test of second-term agenda
2026-03-31T06:00:06-0400 / https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-trump-v-barbara/
Washington — The Supreme Court on Wednesday is set to weigh whether President Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship withstands constitutional and legal muster, a case that tests a key aspect of the president’s second-term immigration agenda.
At issue in the case, known as Trump v. Barbara, is whether Mr. Trump’s directive, issued on his first day back in the White House, comports with the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and federal immigration law.
The dispute arrives at the high court as its conservative majority has handed the president several preliminary victories in cases over his immigration policies, allowing some of them to be enforced while legal proceedings continue. But opponents of the birthright citizenship order hope the justices will hand him a defeat in this case, especially after the court struck down Mr. Trump’s most sweeping tariffs in February.
The president has condemned the Supreme Court in the wake of that decision, attacking two of the conservative justices he appointed and who voted to invalidate the levies as “bad for the country.” Mr. Trump may be bracing for a loss in the birthright citizenship case, writing on Truth Social last month that the Supreme Court “will find a way to come to the wrong conclusion.”
The high court has “started to push back after an inauspicious but unexplained set of rulings on the shadow docket,” said Norm Eisen, co-founder of Democracy Defenders Fund, which is co-counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union in the birthright citizenship case. “Now that we’re getting final rulings in cases like the National Guard case or the tariffs case, the high court is joining the trial and appellate courts in barring Donald Trump’s illegal action, and they should do the same when it comes to birthright citizenship.”
The legal battle over birthright citizenship
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 after the Civil War, with the aim of disavowing the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision. It 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.” Congress codified that clause in the Nationality Act in 1940 and again in the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1952.
For more than a century, the 14th Amendment has been understood to broadly confer citizenship to nearly all babies born on U.S. soil, with some rare exceptions. But Mr. Trump’s executive order embraces a more narrow view. The administration argues the amendment does not grant citizenship to children born to parents in the country illegally or temporarily, like those on student or work visas, or those granted certain protections to live and work in the U.S.
Mr. Trump’s order has not taken effect, since all of the lower courts who have considered it have found it is likely unconstitutional. In the dispute before the Supreme Court, three plaintiffs with children who would be denied citizenship under the order filed a class-action lawsuit last July seeking to block it. U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante ruled in their favor, and the Supreme Court in December agreed to bypass the appeals court and move straight to reviewing the legality of Mr. Trump’s measure.
In filings with the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, not to babies whose parents are undocumented or in the U.S. temporarily.
He said the interpretation that the Constitution guarantees citizenship by birth has been wrongly applied for more than a century, and the president is now seeking to correct that “misreading.”
As a result of that prevailing view of citizenship by birth, citizenship has been granted to “hundreds of thousands of people who do not qualify for it,” Sauer argued. That misinterpretation has “powerfully incentivized” illegal immigration into the U.S. and encouraged “birth tourism,” in which pregnant mothers come to the country to obtain U.S. citizenship for their babies, he argued.
“Birthright citizenship for children of illegal and transient aliens degrades the meaning and value of American citizenship,” Sauer said.
In court papers, the two sides and legal scholars backing them have put forth dueling definitions of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Each assert that history is on their side.
Under the Trump administration’s view, only those who are “completely subject” to the country’s political jurisdiction — meaning those who owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and may claim its protection — are guaranteed citizenship. Children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary residents cannot meet that standard, Sauer said.
“The question was whether your parents were completely within the protection of the sovereign, and under that view, there is an argument that temporary visitors and unlawfully present aliens are excluded,” said Ilan Wurman, a law professor at the University of Minnesota. Wurman argues that the history of the 14th Amendment supports Mr. Trump’s executive order.
But lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that “subject to the jurisdiction” means subject to U.S. laws. They said the Citizenship Clause recognizes only a narrow set of exceptions for the children of diplomats and invading enemies, as well as babies born into Native American tribes.
“Birthright citizenship is fundamental to who we are as a country, and it’s written into the Constitution,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “The Trump administration’s executive order is seeking to strip that right away from tens of thousands of babies born every month based on who their parents are, but that’s not what the Constitution says and that’s not how we decide citizenship in America.”
The battle over the guarantee of birthright citizenship has sparked debate among conservative legal scholars, some of whom assert that the long-held understanding of the 14th Amendment is wrong.
“The executive is required at the first instance to interpret the law, and the executive is not bound by an erroneous conventional wisdom that emerged late in the day,” Wurman said. “This is the executive’s attempt at a course correction.”
The administration said that the 14th Amendment was originally understood to extend citizenship to the children of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals with a “permanent domicil and residence” in the country. The Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark supports that view, Sauer wrote.
That case, involving a California man named Wong Kim Ark whose parents were citizens of China, marked the first time in which the high court considered the meaning of the Citizenship Clause. In a 6-2 decision, the justices ruled that the 14th Amendment granted Wong Kim Ark citizenship because he was born in the U.S. Sauer noted that the court referenced the parents as permanent residents of the U.S. several times in its opinion.
The ACLU and opponents of Mr. Trump’s executive order claimed the president is attempting to rewrite settled law. The framers of the 14th Amendment preserved the English common-law rule of citizenship by birth in the Constitution, and that understanding was cemented by the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, they said.
“When the framers of the 14th Amendment drafted the language we see today, they were enshrining a pre-existing legal rule, that the children of immigrants were U.S. citizens if they’re born in this country, and it doesn’t matter what their parents’ nationality is or how long they’re here or what their immigration status might be,” Wofsy said.
Apart from the constitutional provision, he noted that Congress, in 1940 and again in 1952, enshrined the same rule into law, which on its own renders the president’s executive order illegal.
They also rejected the notion that the Citizenship Clause requires parents to be permanent residents and said if the framers of the 14th Amendment wanted to impose a so-called domicile requirement, they would’ve said so.
Into the “American democratic fold”
The Migration Policy Institute and Penn State’s Population Research Institute estimated that more than 250,000 babies born each year would be impacted by Mr. Trump’s executive order. The Trump administration has said that the directive is prospective. Under the policy, federal agencies are directed not to issue citizenship documents for babies born more than 30 days after it takes effect.
But the plaintiffs warned that if the Supreme Court embraces the Trump administration’s reading of the Citizenship Clause, it would cast a shadow over the citizenship of millions of Americans.
“What a decision in favor of the administration here would do is open the door to even more questioning of people’s citizenship beyond the categories of folks targeted here,” Wofsy said. “That’s already an insidious aspect of culture at the moment, but it would kick that into overdrive and declare open season on questioning the citizenship of other Americans.”
In a friend-of-the-court brief, Democratic attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia warned Mr. Trump’s executive order would impose significant administrative burdens on their states and jeopardize millions of dollars in federal funding.
“One of the reasons behind birthright citizenship is to bring people who are born in America into the American democratic fold, to make them citizens, to make them eligible to vote and decide on the future of our state, to make them be eligible to serve on a jury and participate in that very democratic function of serving on a jury of your peers, to allow them to run for office potentially, to have them be citizens engaged in our democracy,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said. “If that all gets taken away, that sort of social compact that’s enshrined in the U.S. Constitution gets taken away.”
Bonta estimated that Mr. Trump’s policy would deny citizenship to between 20,000 and 24,000 babies born in California each year and render them ineligible for federally funded programs. As a result, states would lose out on federal dollars from programs like Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
“There’s all sorts of costs that will be pushed down to the states by this decision if it’s upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said.
A decision from the high court is expected by the end of June or early July.