Key Developments From Judiciary Hearing On Birthright Citizenship

Permanent resident cards with welcome guide and flag.

House Judiciary Committee convenes high-stakes hearing to scrutinize birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment as legal experts debate its interpretation and potential limitations.

Key Insights

The hearing titled “‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’: Birthright Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment” features testimony from prominent legal experts including Charles J. Cooper and Matt O’Brien.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, has been interpreted to grant automatic citizenship to nearly all children born on U.S. soil regardless of parents’ status.
The U.S. Supreme Court established precedent in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, confirming birthright citizenship applies to children of non-citizens.
Civil rights organizations warn that attempts to restrict birthright citizenship could create a permanent underclass and contradict American values of equality.
The hearing examines legal interpretations that could impact millions of Americans and future immigration policy.

Constitutional Debate Takes Center Stage

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government has assembled a panel of legal scholars to examine the scope and meaning of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The February 25 hearing brings together experts including Charles J. Cooper, Chairman of Cooper & Kirk PLLC; R. Trent McCotter, Partner at Boyden Gray PLLC; Matt O’Brien from the Immigration Reform Law Institute; and Professor Amanda Frost from the University of Virginia School of Law. Each witness brings specialized knowledge to a constitutional question with profound implications for American citizenship and immigration policy.

The hearing specifically focuses on the interpretation of the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the 14th Amendment’s citizenship provision. This language has been the subject of ongoing legal debate, with some scholars arguing it excludes children of unauthorized immigrants while others maintain it grants citizenship to virtually all children born on American soil with only narrow exceptions. The committee aims to clarify historical context and legal precedent surrounding this constitutional language.

LIVE: House Judiciary Committee's Hearing on Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment https://t.co/N5Y6t5jFZN

— NTD News (@NTDNews) February 25, 2025

Historical Context and Legal Precedent

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified following the Civil War in 1868, 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.” This amendment was initially passed to overturn the Dred Scott decision and ensure citizenship rights for formerly enslaved people. However, its application has expanded over time through court interpretation and precedent.

As a reminder, 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says, “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 U.S. Supreme Court addressed this issue directly in the landmark 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In that ruling, the Court held that a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents was entitled to birthright citizenship. This precedent has guided American citizenship law for over a century, establishing that with limited exceptions for children of foreign diplomats and enemy occupiers, birth on American soil confers citizenship regardless of parents’ status or documentation.

Civil Rights Concerns and Potential Impacts

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition representing over 240 national organizations, submitted a statement to the subcommittee emphasizing the importance of preserving the current interpretation of birthright citizenship. The organization warns that attempts to limit the Citizenship Clause could create a permanent underclass of non-citizens and lead to significant legal complications for countless Americans, potentially requiring new documentation processes to verify citizenship status.

As the case law in Miller v. Albright makes clear, “There are ‘two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person ‘born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’ Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress.”

The hearing comes amid renewed debates about immigration policy and border security. Critics of the current interpretation argue that the original intent of the 14th Amendment did not include granting automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. Supporters of the established precedent contend that any attempt to narrow birthright citizenship would contradict over a century of legal understanding and create harmful divisions in American society. The testimony provided during this hearing could influence future legislative proposals or executive actions.

Constitutional Scrutiny and Future Implications

Legal experts testifying before the committee bring varied perspectives on whether Congress or the executive branch has authority to redefine birthright citizenship without a constitutional amendment. The committee’s examination occurs against the backdrop of past proposals to limit birthright citizenship through legislative or executive action. Such measures would likely face immediate constitutional challenges if enacted, ultimately requiring Supreme Court review to determine their validity under the 14th Amendment.

The hearing represents a significant moment in the ongoing national conversation about citizenship, immigration, and constitutional interpretation. While no immediate policy changes will result directly from this testimony, the legal arguments presented may inform future legislative efforts and shape public understanding of this consequential constitutional provision. Americans across the political spectrum are watching closely as fundamental questions about citizenship rights receive renewed scrutiny from lawmakers and constitutional scholars.