Welcome
Tell us a little about yourself and choose what you’d like to hear from us. You can change this at any time in your account.
The fate of President Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to limit access to birthright citizenship is now up for a final decision from the Supreme Court. Questioning of the judges during oral arguments of about two hours trump vs barbaraAn icy reception to the Justice Department’s claim suggests that the constitutional guarantee of citizenship is based on an innovative interpretation of the legal concept known as “domicile.” Without the court accepting that interpretation, the Trump administration is unlikely to successfully defend the presidential directive.
***
Trump’s executive order, which he issued on January 20, 2025, claims that the 14th Amendment grants U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States based on their parents’ citizenship or immigration status. The Citizenship Clause of the Amendment provides that a person “becomes a citizen of the United States and of the State wherein he resides” if they were born in the United States and are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
To successfully defend the constitutionality of Trump’s order, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sawyer will have to convince a majority of the justices on three fronts. First, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that a person is “domiciled” in the United States. Second, that domicile should be interpreted as requiring legal permission to remain in the United States indefinitely as a permanent resident, rather than doing so temporarily or entirely without the permission of the federal government, which is the most privileged form of immigration status. Third, children born in the United States acquire citizenship at birth only if the mother resides in the country at the time of the child’s birth.
The word domicile is not used in the text of the citizenship clause, but the Trump administration argues that it is implied. Sawyer, the federal government’s lead counsel before the Supreme Court, argued that “residence”, which appears in the Citizenship Clause (in the context of state citizenship), “means domicile in the Constitution.” He told the judges that the constitutional provision “presupposes domicile” for children to acquire US citizenship at birth. Although none of them openly accepted Sawyer’s attempt to read domicile into the 14th Amendment, none explicitly rejected his argument.
Recommended Quotes: Cesar Cuauhtémoc Garcia Hernandez, Why the Supreme Court’s birthright-citizenship decision may hinge on the meaning of “domicile”SCOTUSBlog (April 20, 2026, 9:30 am), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/04/Why might Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision depend on the meaning of residence?
Where several judges expressed doubts over the government’s proposed definition of domicile. The term generally refers to where a person lives and wants to live next. As the court explained in a 1983 decision, domicile describes a person’s “permanent home and place of residence. It is the place where he intends to live, and where he expects to return when he leaves.” This broad definition emphasizes a person’s decision to make his or her home in a particular location and to continue doing so in the future. In contrast, Sawyer claimed that domicile requires legal permission to live in a particular place, and that permission is determined by immigration law. As he told the judges, the domicile “is valid presence With the intention of remaining permanently.”
During oral argument, several justices indicated their disagreement with Sawyer’s definition of domicile. Without mentioning the lawful-presence component, Justice Samuel Alito stated that “a person’s domicile is the place where he intends to make a permanent home.” Justice Neil Gorsuch, meanwhile, outright rejected Sauer’s inclusion of a legitimate requirement. Gorsuch suggested that the legality of a person’s presence in the United States is irrelevant to domicile because in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution, there were few federal laws regulating immigration. Unlike today, when a complex series of federal immigration laws impose stringent restrictions on immigrants and potential immigrants, in 1868 “we did not really have laws like that”, Gorsuch told the Solicitor General, “so why should we not, even if we apply your own test, come to the conclusion that the fact that a person may be illegal is immaterial”?
Sawyer disagreed, arguing that the Citizenship Clause includes immigration restrictions enacted by Congress. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also explicitly objected to this claim. According to Jackson, the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution “to prevent future Congresses from prejudging citizenship.” (Sawyer responded flatly, “No, I don’t think so.”)
Whatever definition of domicile the judges accept, if they agree with the Trump administration that domicile is a necessary component of the constitutional analysis of birthright citizenship, they will need to figure out whose domicile counts. No one disputes that domicile is essential to assessing where a person wants to live, so it is not surprising that they also agree that a child who is too young to decide where to live cannot be domiciled. Instead, the child’s place of residence necessarily depends on the parents’ place of residence. Responding to Gorsuch’s questions, Sawyer argued that historical sources do not distinguish “between the mother or the father.”
There are two problems with Sawyer’s claim that the domicile principle treats mothers and fathers equally. First, it conflicts with Trump’s own executive order, which insists on the mother’s immigration status. According to the President’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, a child born in the United States does not acquire citizenship at the time of birth if the mother was not domiciled in the United States because she was living in the country illegally or with temporary authorization. Sawyer similarly claimed that “I think it really is the mother’s residence that will make the difference.” Second, Sawyer’s claims at oral argument conflict with the Justice Department’s written argument. The Swiss jurist Emmerich de Vettel, whose The Law of Nations the government repeatedly discusses in its brief, left no doubt that legal theory recognized the position of the father as more important than that of the mother. As Vettel explains in a section of the Justice Department brief quoting, “Children obey their father’s position.”
Thus, the administration faces an uphill battle. It would require not only convincing the court to adopt its definition of domicile, but convincing a majority of justices that the mother’s domicile is what matters, despite there being no mention of it in the 14th Amendment. Oral arguments show that the government will not succeed. But we will know for sure only when the court issues its opinion, which will likely not be before the end of June.
<a href=