Administration submission argues children born to foreign nationals in transient or temporary status were not historically viewed as U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment.

By yourNEWS Media Newsroom

The White House has released a detailed legal filing arguing that historical interpretations of the 14th Amendment do not support automatic U.S. citizenship for children born to foreign nationals who are in the country temporarily or without lawful status, bolstering President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship.

The filing, submitted in support of Trump’s order and now before the Supreme Court, compiles historical commentary from legal scholars, judges, and treatise writers dating from the late 19th century through the early 20th century. According to a report summarizing the document, the White House argues that contemporaneous legal authorities consistently interpreted the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as excluding children born to parents who were foreign nationals in transient or temporary residence.

President Trump issued the executive order months ago stating that children born to individuals who are in the United States illegally are not automatically U.S. citizens. The order prompted immediate legal challenges, with opponents arguing that long-standing interpretation holds that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen.

The administration’s filing centers on the constitutional language itself, which provides citizenship to those born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The White House contends that historical sources demonstrate this language was intended to require full political allegiance and legal subjection to the United States, not mere physical presence at birth.

Legal scholar Ilan Wurman highlighted the filing in a widely circulated social media post, noting that many early commentators assumed children of temporary visitors did not qualify for birthright citizenship, according to his January 21, 2026 statement.

The brief cites numerous legal authorities from the period surrounding the adoption and early interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Among them is Francis Wharton, who wrote in his 1881 work A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws that “Chinese born of Chinese non-naturalized parents, such parents not being here domiciled, are not citizens.”

Alexander Porter Morse, in A Treatise on Citizenship published in 1881, wrote that “the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ exclude the children of foreigners transiently within the United States.”

Other cited authorities include William Edward Hall, who stated in his 1895 Treatise on International Law that “in the United States it would seem that the children of foreigners in transient residence are not citizens,” and Boyd Winchester, who wrote in Citizenship in Its International Relation in 1897 that the jurisdiction requirement excludes “children of persons passing through or temporarily residing in this country.”

Henry Brannon, in his 1901 Treatise on the Rights and Privileges Guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, similarly wrote that “mere birth within the American territory does not always make the child an American citizen,” specifically referencing children born to alien parents who were traveling or only temporarily resident.

The White House filing argues that these interpretations prevailed for decades following ratification of the 14th Amendment and diverge sharply from modern assumptions that birth on U.S. soil alone is sufficient to confer citizenship.

Administration officials contend that if the courts affirm this historical interpretation, it could significantly affect practices such as birth tourism, in which foreign nationals travel to the United States to give birth in order to secure citizenship for their children.

The legal dispute now before the Supreme Court places renewed focus on the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and how its citizenship clause should be applied in modern immigration law. The Court has not yet indicated when it will rule on the challenges to Trump’s executive order.