The Supreme Court is hearing whether children born in the United States should automatically be U.S. citizens — a practice long grounded in the 14th Amendment but recently challenged by the Trump administration. The court’s ruling, which could take months, may alter a principle that has been widely accepted since the amendment’s adoption in 1868.
What the Constitution says
The first section of the 14th Amendment 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.” Adopted after the Civil War, the clause was intended to secure rights for formerly enslaved people. The Trump administration argued the clause is susceptible to abuse and took executive action seeking to end automatic birthright citizenship for children of parents who entered the country unlawfully.
How common is birthright citizenship worldwide?
Roughly three dozen countries — mainly in the Western Hemisphere — grant automatic citizenship based on birthplace (jus soli, or “right of the soil”). Many other nations rely chiefly on jus sanguinis, citizenship through parentage. Over recent decades some countries that once had broad jus soli rules have narrowed or ended them; others, especially in Europe and Asia, long favored lineage-based criteria.
Public opinion is nuanced
Americans’ views vary widely and are sensitive to how questions are framed. General questions about birthright citizenship often show broad support, but that support frequently drops when polls specify parents’ immigration status.
Representative survey findings:
– PRRI (December): About two-thirds said children should get citizenship “regardless of their parents’ citizenship status.”
– CHIP50 (large academic survey): 59% favored keeping birthright citizenship; respondents were reminded the right is in the Constitution.
– NPR/Ipsos: A slim majority (53%) opposed ending the practice; 28% favored ending it.
– Pew Research Center: Over 90% support birthright citizenship for children of parents who immigrated legally; Americans were split about children of parents in the country illegally (50% to 49%).
– YouGov: 51% overall in favor and 39% opposed; support dropped to 31% for babies of “undocumented” parents and to 25% for children born to visiting tourists.
Partisan, racial, age and information divides
Views on birthright citizenship often align with party, race, age and preferred news source.
– Party: Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to support birthright citizenship regardless of parents’ status. Pew found roughly three-quarters of Democrats would grant citizenship to children of those who entered illegally, compared with about one-quarter of Republicans. CHIP50 reported about 80% of Democrats favored automatic citizenship “regardless of parents’ immigration status,” versus 39% of Republicans.
– Within Republicans: Ethnic differences are pronounced. Only 18% of white Republicans supported birthright citizenship for children of those who entered illegally, versus 55% of Republican Hispanics.
– Race: Pew reported about 75% of Latinos and 61% of Black Americans supported citizenship for children of parents who immigrated illegally; 48% of Asian Americans and 42% of white Americans agreed.
– Age and generation: People under 50 tended to favor citizenship for children of parents who entered illegally (58% to 41% per Pew), while those 50 and older were more likely to oppose it. Second-generation Americans were more supportive (around two-thirds) than third-generation-or-higher Americans, a majority of whom opposed it.
– Media and information sources: PRRI found big gaps by trusted news source. More than 80% of people who trust newspapers or mainstream TV news supported birthright citizenship “regardless of parents’ citizenship status.” Among those who primarily trust Fox News, support was 41%; it fell to 29% for audiences of outlets further to the right.
Why this matters
A Supreme Court decision that narrows or overturns the current reading of the 14th Amendment would directly affect children born on U.S. soil and could reshape immigration policy, enforcement, and legal definitions of citizenship. The issue combines constitutional interpretation with broader political and social questions about immigration, identity and national membership.
As the justices weigh the case, public opinion remains divided in ways that reflect larger partisan and demographic splits. Their interpretation of the 14th Amendment will determine whether birthright citizenship continues as an automatic right for everyone born in the United States or whether new restrictions will be imposed.