FAIR Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court for Review on Birthright Citizenship Case
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has made a significant move, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a crucial case regarding birthright citizenship. This advocacy follows the federal government's petition to review two appellate court rulings that have challenged President Trump’s executive order, which sought to restrict constitutional birthright citizenship to children born to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
On October 28, 2025, FAIR, in collaboration with the Landmark Legal Foundation, submitted a brief to the Supreme Court that emphasizes the historical precedent set by the Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark from 1898. This landmark ruling established that individuals born in the U.S. to parents who were legally residing there are granted U.S. citizenship at birth, under the Fourteenth Amendment. The key argument made by FAIR is that the amendment, as elucidated in the Wong Kim Ark decision, requires that to be a citizen at birth, the parents must have legal permission to reside in the U.S. at the time of the individual's birth.
FAIR articulates a contrasting viewpoint to that of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, activist judges, and numerous academic commentators who maintain that anyone born on U.S. soil, whose parents are not diplomats or part of an invading army, is automatically granted citizenship. They argue that the true interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as dictated by the precedent of Wong Kim Ark, dictates that only children born to parents with lawful status are entitled to birthright citizenship. As such, this distinction would effectively eliminate the constitutional citizenship claims of children born to illegal immigrants and tourists, neither of whom possess permission to reside in the country legally.
The organization insists that the Supreme Court’s intervention is essential to rectify what it calls a widespread legal mistake made by the lower courts regarding this fundamental interpretation of constitutional law. FAIR is calling on the Court to grant what is known as 'certiorari'—a term that indicates a court’s decision to review a case. The brief emphasizes that the Supreme Court is still bound by the construction of Wong Kim Ark, which has not been convincingly overturned by any strong legal grounds.
Christopher J. Hajec, FAIR's deputy general counsel, points out that the precedent from Wong Kim Ark has been largely overlooked and misrepresented in legal education and by scholars for an astonishing 127 years. He argues for a rational and clear interpretation of the law, urging the Supreme Court to correctly apply its own long-standing legal rulings when evaluating these cases.
The cases under review—Trump v. Washington (No. 25-364) and Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365)—expressly focus on President Trump’s directive that modifies the conventional understanding of citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. By challenging the expansive interpretation of birthright citizenship, these cases delve into a profound discussion over America’s immigration policy and the legal foundations of citizenship.
The outcome of such a ruling by the Supreme Court could have significant implications for future immigration and citizenship laws in the U.S. It could clarify the boundaries of constitutional rights concerning birthright citizenship, affecting generations of individuals born in the U.S. The public and political response to the Supreme Court's eventual decision is anticipated to be deeply divisive, reflecting the ongoing national conversation surrounding immigration reform and the complexities of American nationality law.
In summary, FAIR’s assertion to the Supreme Court aligns with a broader desire to revisit and reconsider birthright citizenship, continuing to challenge established norms and interpretations based on the historical context. As this situation develops, it highlights the pressing need for clarity and coherence in America’s legal definitions of citizenship in an ever-evolving demographic landscape.
On October 28, 2025, FAIR, in collaboration with the Landmark Legal Foundation, submitted a brief to the Supreme Court that emphasizes the historical precedent set by the Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark from 1898. This landmark ruling established that individuals born in the U.S. to parents who were legally residing there are granted U.S. citizenship at birth, under the Fourteenth Amendment. The key argument made by FAIR is that the amendment, as elucidated in the Wong Kim Ark decision, requires that to be a citizen at birth, the parents must have legal permission to reside in the U.S. at the time of the individual's birth.
FAIR articulates a contrasting viewpoint to that of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, activist judges, and numerous academic commentators who maintain that anyone born on U.S. soil, whose parents are not diplomats or part of an invading army, is automatically granted citizenship. They argue that the true interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as dictated by the precedent of Wong Kim Ark, dictates that only children born to parents with lawful status are entitled to birthright citizenship. As such, this distinction would effectively eliminate the constitutional citizenship claims of children born to illegal immigrants and tourists, neither of whom possess permission to reside in the country legally.
The organization insists that the Supreme Court’s intervention is essential to rectify what it calls a widespread legal mistake made by the lower courts regarding this fundamental interpretation of constitutional law. FAIR is calling on the Court to grant what is known as 'certiorari'—a term that indicates a court’s decision to review a case. The brief emphasizes that the Supreme Court is still bound by the construction of Wong Kim Ark, which has not been convincingly overturned by any strong legal grounds.
Christopher J. Hajec, FAIR's deputy general counsel, points out that the precedent from Wong Kim Ark has been largely overlooked and misrepresented in legal education and by scholars for an astonishing 127 years. He argues for a rational and clear interpretation of the law, urging the Supreme Court to correctly apply its own long-standing legal rulings when evaluating these cases.
The cases under review—Trump v. Washington (No. 25-364) and Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365)—expressly focus on President Trump’s directive that modifies the conventional understanding of citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. By challenging the expansive interpretation of birthright citizenship, these cases delve into a profound discussion over America’s immigration policy and the legal foundations of citizenship.
The outcome of such a ruling by the Supreme Court could have significant implications for future immigration and citizenship laws in the U.S. It could clarify the boundaries of constitutional rights concerning birthright citizenship, affecting generations of individuals born in the U.S. The public and political response to the Supreme Court's eventual decision is anticipated to be deeply divisive, reflecting the ongoing national conversation surrounding immigration reform and the complexities of American nationality law.
In summary, FAIR’s assertion to the Supreme Court aligns with a broader desire to revisit and reconsider birthright citizenship, continuing to challenge established norms and interpretations based on the historical context. As this situation develops, it highlights the pressing need for clarity and coherence in America’s legal definitions of citizenship in an ever-evolving demographic landscape.
Topics Policy & Public Interest）
【About Using Articles】
You can freely use the title and article content by linking to the page where the article is posted.
※ Images cannot be used.
【About Links】
Links are free to use.