The Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether children born in the United States should automatically receive U.S. citizenship, a practice long protected by the Constitution but recently challenged by the Trump administration. The court’s decision, not expected for months, could change a practice that has been in place since the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.
What the Constitution says
The 14th Amendment’s first section declares: “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.” The clause was enacted after the Civil War to protect the rights of formerly enslaved people. The Trump administration has argued that the provision is outdated and subject to abuse; on the first day of his second term, the president signed an executive order seeking to end automatic birthright citizenship for children of parents who entered the country illegally.
How common is birthright citizenship globally?
Only about three dozen countries, mostly in the Western Hemisphere, grant automatic birthright citizenship (jus soli, “right of the soil”). Many nations use jus sanguinis—citizenship through parentage—rather than birthplace. Some countries that once offered jus soli have restricted or ended it in recent decades; others, including several in Europe and Asia, have long relied primarily on lineage-based rules.
Public opinion is nuanced
Americans’ views on birthright citizenship are mixed and depend heavily on question wording and context. When asked about birthright citizenship in general, many polls show broad support. But that support often drops sharply when questions specify the parents’ immigration status.
Survey results vary:
– PRRI (December): About two-thirds favor granting citizenship “regardless of their parents’ citizenship status.”
– CHIP50 (large-sample academic survey): 59% support keeping birthright citizenship; the poll noted the right is in the Constitution.
– NPR/Ipsos: Found a slim majority (53%) opposed to ending the practice, with 28% in favor of ending it.
– Pew Research Center: More than 9 in 10 support birthright citizenship for children of parents who immigrated legally; for children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, Americans were divided, 50% to 49%.
– YouGov: 51% overall in favor, 39% opposed; support falls to 31% for babies of “undocumented” parents and to 25% for children born to visiting tourists.
Partisan, racial, age and information divides
Support or opposition often splits along party lines, race, age and media trust.
– 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 a quarter of Republicans. CHIP50 reported 8 in 10 Democrats in favor “regardless of parents’ immigration status,” versus 39% of Republicans.
– Within Republicans: Major differences exist by ethnicity. Only 18% of white Republicans support birthright citizenship for children of those who entered illegally, while 55% of Republican Hispanics do.
– By race: Pew found roughly 75% of Latinos and 61% of Black Americans support granting birthright citizenship to children of parents who immigrated illegally; 48% of Asian Americans and 42% of white Americans agreed.
– Age and generation: Those under 50 lean toward allowing citizenship for children of parents who entered illegally (58% to 41% per Pew), while those 50 and older are more likely to oppose it. Second-generation Americans are more supportive (about two-thirds) than those who are third-generation or higher, a majority of whom oppose it.
– Media and information sources: PRRI found large gaps by preferred news source. More than 80% of respondents who trust newspapers or mainstream TV news supported birthright citizenship “regardless of parents’ citizenship status.” Among those who primarily trust Fox News, 41% supported it; support fell to 29% among those who rely on outlets further to the right.
Why the issue matters
If the Supreme Court narrows or overturns the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, it would affect children born on U.S. soil and could reshape immigration policy, enforcement priorities and legal definitions of citizenship. The debate is not only legal but political and social, reflecting differing views about immigration, national identity and constitutional interpretation.
As the court hears arguments, public opinion remains split in ways that mirror broader partisan and demographic divides. How the justices interpret the 14th Amendment will determine whether birthright citizenship remains an automatic right for all born in the United States or whether new limits will be imposed.
