Supreme Court could upend a century of legal practice

Story by Grace Hall
Dec 20 • 1 min read • Updated 6h ago

Key takeaways

  • Legal Background: The 14th Amendment | 1868 guarantees citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the U.S., historically upheld by cases like United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
  • Controversy: Supporters of President Trump's order argue that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of foreign parents, while critics call this a narrow interpretation.
  • Potential Impact: The ruling could overturn a century of legal practice, redefine who is considered a U.S. citizen, and set a new precedent or uphold existing law.





Supreme Court Officials have reviewed a dispute between the USPS and landlord Lebene Konan over whether a postal exemption bars suits regarding intentional mail nondelivery. Critics had raised concerns over alleged racial motives and tenant harm. A federal appeals court ruled that Konan’s claims are not fully covered by the FTCA exception, prompting Supreme Court review.© Getty Images

The Supreme Court will hear challenges to President Donald Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship, which the 14th Amendment grants to people born on U.S. soil.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States and has long been interpreted to provide birthright citizenship.
Historians and past rulings, including United States v. Wong Kim Ark, back the traditional view that birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship.
‘Subject to the Jurisdiction’



WASHINGTON, DC – FEBRUARY 5: Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh (Photo by Doug Mills-Pool/Getty Images)

Supporters of the order say the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of foreign parents.
Critics say the executive order relies on a narrow reading of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” promoted by some Claremont Institute scholars, who argue it excludes children of noncitizen parents.
The case matters because it could overturn more than a century of legal practice and change who the nation considers a citizen, and it leaves open whether the court will create a new rule or uphold longstanding precedent.
This story was reported by content partner Modern Newsstand LLC.

Supreme Court could upend a century of legal practice