Birthright Citizenship Before the Supreme Court
Inside the legal and historical debate over the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship.
Newt Gingrich and Zack Smith examine the constitutional battle over birthright citizenship and what the Supreme Court's decision could mean for America.
As the Supreme Court considers one of the most significant constitutional questions in decades, Newt Gingrich is joined by Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Zack Smith to unpack the legal arguments surrounding President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. Their conversation explores the history of the 14th Amendment, the intent of its framers, and why this case could reshape the national debate over immigration and citizenship.
Together, Newt and Zack examine landmark Supreme Court decisions, including Dred Scott v. Sandford and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, while discussing how historical precedent, constitutional interpretation, and modern immigration realities intersect. They also consider the broader implications of birth tourism, congressional authority, and what the Court's eventual ruling could mean for future administrations and the American legal system.
Listen to the episode below, or scroll down for an edited transcript.
Edited Transcript
This conversation has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Newt Gingrich
The Supreme Court is considering one of the most consequential constitutional questions in recent years: whether children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders are automatically entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
President Trump’s executive order has reignited a long-running debate over the original meaning of the Constitution, the intent behind the 14th Amendment, and whether today’s interpretation reflects what its framers intended.
To help explain the legal and historical issues involved, I’m joined by Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Zack Smith.
Zack Smith
The executive order directs federal agencies not to issue citizenship documents, such as U.S. passports, to children born in the United States whose parents are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.
The administration argues this is consistent with the original understanding of the 14th Amendment, particularly the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The argument is that citizenship requires more than simply being born on U.S. soil. It also requires allegiance to the United States.
Newt Gingrich
Many Americans assume the Constitution clearly guarantees birthright citizenship simply because someone is born here. How does the historical record compare to that common understanding?
Zack Smith
The debate centers on the meaning of that jurisdiction clause. Supporters of the administration argue that the framers intended citizenship to apply to those whose parents owed allegiance to the United States, not individuals temporarily present or unlawfully in the country.
Most other nations also require some connection beyond birthplace, such as citizenship or permanent residency of a parent.
Newt Gingrich
The Dred Scott decision helped lead directly to the adoption of the 14th Amendment. How does that history influence today’s legal debate?
Zack Smith
The primary purpose of the 14th Amendment was to overturn Dred Scott and guarantee citizenship for formerly enslaved Americans. The administration argues that this historical purpose should not be expanded beyond what the amendment’s language originally required.
The later Wong Kim Ark decision is also frequently cited, but supporters of the executive order contend that case involved lawful long-term residents rather than individuals who entered the country illegally or temporarily.
Newt Gingrich
Another concern raised today involves birth tourism, where individuals travel to the United States specifically to give birth so their children receive American citizenship.
Zack Smith
That issue illustrates how dramatically circumstances have changed since the 19th century. Modern transportation makes international travel far easier, creating situations the framers of the 14th Amendment likely never anticipated.
The administration argues these new realities justify reconsidering the current interpretation of birthright citizenship.
Newt Gingrich
President Trump became the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court in person. Did anything during the hearing stand out to you?
Zack Smith
The justices asked difficult questions from across the ideological spectrum. Some appeared skeptical of the administration’s constitutional arguments, while others explored whether Congress rather than the executive branch should ultimately resolve the issue.
There is also the possibility that the Court could decide the case on statutory grounds instead of issuing a sweeping constitutional ruling.
Newt Gingrich
Regardless of the outcome, this decision seems likely to shape immigration policy and constitutional law for years to come.
Zack Smith
I agree. Whether the Court upholds the executive order, rejects it, or leaves the issue to Congress, this will be one of the defining constitutional decisions of the term and will likely influence future immigration debates for decades.
About the Guest
Zack Smith is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, where he focuses on constitutional law, the federal judiciary, and legal policy. He frequently analyzes Supreme Court cases and provides insight into issues involving the Constitution, separation of powers, and the rule of law.
You can manage your subscription preferences to choose the updates, newsletters, and alerts you want to receive on the website.