The 14th Amendment has meant the same thing for 128 years. Wednesday could change that.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case that traces its roots to a San Francisco port in 1895, when a young cook named Wong Kim Ark returned from a trip to China and was turned away by customs officials who declared him a non-citizen. He had been born in the city’s Chinatown neighborhood and had lived his entire life in the United States. Three years later, the Supreme Court disagreed with that decision, ruling 6-2 that the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship to Wong Kim Ark regardless of his parents’ nationality. That 1898 ruling has shaped American citizenship ever since. On Wednesday, the court will hear arguments over whether that understanding still holds.
What the case is about
The case, Trump v. Barbara, centers on an executive order President Donald Trump signed on his first day back in office in January 2025. The order denies birthright citizenship to children born in the United States if neither parent is a citizen or legal permanent resident, targeting both undocumented immigrants and those present legally but temporarily, such as students and workers.
Federal judges blocked the order almost immediately, and it has never taken effect. The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the New Hampshire case that blocked the policy nationally. A ruling is expected by the end of June.
The family watching closely
Norman Wong is 76 years old, a retired carpenter and the great-grandson of the man whose name anchors the 1898 precedent. He spent much of his life unaware of his family’s legal legacy, but in recent years has spoken publicly about what Wednesday’s arguments mean to him. He sees the executive order not as a conclusion but as an opening move in a broader effort to narrow who belongs in America, and he describes his ancestor as someone who affirmed a rule rather than created one.
The legal dispute
The 14th Amendment states that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. That language has been interpreted for over a century to exclude only the children of foreign diplomats and, historically, occupying enemy forces.
The Trump administration argues that the 1898 ruling turned on the fact that Wong Kim Ark’s parents had permanent domicile in the United States, and that people present illegally or temporarily do not meet that standard. Critics of that reading say the administration is selectively interpreting a decision that clearly extended citizenship beyond narrow diplomatic exceptions.
If the court allows the order to take effect, some estimates suggest up to 250,000 babies born each year could be affected, and millions of families would face new requirements to document their newborns’ citizenship beyond a birth certificate.
The birth tourism debate
The administration has pointed to birth tourism as a central justification. Commercial operations in Southern California once coached pregnant women from China to enter on tourist visas, deliver their children and return home with infants holding American passports. Federal indictments in 2019 charged 19 people in connection with those businesses, with operators sentenced to prison on visa fraud and money laundering charges.
How widespread birth tourism actually is remains deeply contested. Estimates range from fewer than 2,000 births per year to disputed figures in the millions. A brief from 140 university professors described birth tourism as accounting for an infinitesimal share of annual births. Critics argue that existing visa rules already allow officials to deny entry to pregnant women traveling solely to give birth, and that those tools are sufficient without altering the constitutional framework.
What comes next
The Supreme Court is expected to rule before the end of June. Legal scholars broadly agree the administration faces difficult terrain given the 1898 precedent and the length of time birthright citizenship has functioned as settled law. For Norman Wong, whatever the justices decide will say something fundamental about the kind of country America chooses to be.