SCOTUS set to to tackle Birthright Citizenship Wednesday; Idaho AG backs Trump’s executive order
BOISE, Idaho (KIFI) — The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments tomorrow, April 1, in the landmark case Trump v. Barbara, a legal battle challenging President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
In anticipation of the hearing, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador announced that Idaho has joined 23 other states in an amicus brief supporting the executive order. Labrador is urging the high court to overturn current interpretations and restore what he calls the "original understanding" of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
Interpreting "Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof."
In an op-ed published on his official website, Labrador argued that the current interpretation of the clause—which grants automatic citizenship to nearly anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents' legal status—is legally flawed.
Labrador argues that the "original understanding" requires more than just physical presence to lead to citizenship, asserting that parents must be lawful residents or domiciled in the United States for their children to be born citizens.
The legal battle centers on the exact phrasing of the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause reads: “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."
Labrador emphasized that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" creates a specific legal condition that current interpretation ignores.
"That second phrase matters. It was added deliberately, and it means something. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, its primary purpose was clear: to constitutionally protect the citizenship rights of freed slaves after the Civil War," wrote Labrador. "Senator Lyman Trumbull, who drafted the related Civil Rights Act of 1866, explicitly stated that the citizenship provision excluded 'persons temporarily resident in [the United States] whom we would have no right to make citizens.'"
Labrador ended his op-ed calling on the Supreme Court to "provide clarity on this fundamental issue." To read his complete op-ed, click HERE.
ACLU argues SCOTUS already settled the Issue
The Supreme Court case is the result of a class action lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union to block Trump's executive order. The ACLU and its partners are representing "Barbara"—a pseudonym for a Honduran citizen suing on behalf of her family and others in similar circumstances—to block the executive order.
The ACLU argued in its filings that withholding citizenship from future children born in the United States would create a distinct, unauthorized nationwide class of individuals.
In a legal brief filed in October 2025, the ACLU maintained that the Supreme Court already settled the issue of birthright citizenship over a century ago in the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
That 1898 case revolved around a San Francisco man born to Chinese citizens. After a trip to visit his parents in China, Wong Kim Ark was denied re-entry into the United States on the grounds that he was not a citizen. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled 6-to-2 that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically made him a U.S. citizen, establishing the current interpretation of the clause, argues the ACLU.
Attorneys for the Trump administration, however, argue that Wong Kim Ark has been misinterpreted for decades. They argue that the 1898 ruling applied specifically to children of parents who were granted authorization to reside in the U.S. at the time of birth—a distinction they claim does not extend to those in the country illegally.
The highest court is set to hear oral arguments starting at 10 a.m ET (8:00 am MST).
