On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order (EO) called Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. As of this writing, at least four lawsuits have been filed to challenge the EO, and a court in Washington has issued an order disallowing enforcement of the EO, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”

Birthright citizenship is a mainstay of America’s republican democracy. The idea that a person has citizenship of the country in which they’re born is called jus soli, meaning right of soil, as opposed to jus sanguinis, meaning right of blood. Many countries acknowledge birthright citizenship.

In the U.S., birthright citizenship stems from the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which says:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What’s the difference between persons and citizens?

The word “persons” includes humans and business entities. The word “citizen” is a person who is born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. I, the writer of this article, am a person and citizen. The company who owns this website is a person but not a citizen.

who is subject to U.S. jurisdiction?

At a baseline, a person is subject to U.S. jurisdiction if a State or federal court has personal jurisdiction to hear a case they bring or a case brought against them. Both citizens and strangers are under U.S. jurisdiction, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Plyer v. Doe, the Court said:

The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a “person” in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court’s prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are “persons” protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase “within its jurisdiction,” cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase “within its jurisdiction” confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory.” Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

So who isn’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction?

Individuals who are in the U.S. but who have special immunity, like diplomats, aren’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Then who is a citizen?

• Humans born in the United States who have not renounced or lost citizenship and who have no legal immunity to U.S. jurisdiction.
• Humans naturalized in the United States who have not renounced or lost citizenship and who have no legal immunity to U.S. jurisdiction.
• Humans born somewhere other than the U.S. to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen at that time.

Okay, then who isn’t a citizen?

• Humans born in the U.S. who have renounced or lost citizenship.
• Humans who have been naturalized in the U.S. but who have renounced or lost citizenship.
• Humans born somewhere other than the U.S. who have not been naturalized in the U.S. and whose parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth.
• Humans who have diplomatic or other immunity from U.S. jurisdiction.

The Bargain of Jurisdiction

Arguing that a person born in the U.S. is not automatically subject to U.S. jurisdiction has broad implications beyond citizenship.

Sure, they wouldn’t get the benefits of citizenship. They also wouldn’t get equal protection under the law. In exchange, they would not be required to follow the laws of the State or the United States. The U.S. would have no recourse for the actions of such people.

That’s the bargain of jurisdiction: you must follow the laws and you get the benefit of laws.

Summary

Common sense and respect for law dictate that humans born in the U.S. have citizenship regardless of their parentage. The exception, of course, being a human conferred legal immunity to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of birth, like the child of a diplomat.

Four cases challenging EO:

• New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-38 (New Hampshire) (2025).
• Doe v. Trump, case number unknown (Massachusetts) (2025).
• New Jersey v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-10139 (Massachusetts) (2025).
• Washington v. Trump, Case No. C25-0127-JCC (Washington) (2025).

Documents linked from Newsweek, “Full List of Lawsuits Filed Against Donald Trump This Week” (1/21/2025, accessed 1/23/2025) https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-lawsuits-list-executive-orders-doge-citizenship-2018514

Of course, the most obvious Supreme Court case that ruled in favor of birthright citizenship is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In that case, a man born in California to Chinese immigrants traveled out of the country. He was denied re-entry based on the Chinese Exclusion Acts. The Court ruled that the defendant was a citizen of the United States.