The Fourteenth Amendment is back before the U.S. Supreme Court in a way that presents an issue of extraordinary importance.

Yet what’s before the court in Trump v. Barbara isn’t one of the clauses that is often before the court.

This time it’s the Citizenship Clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the (s)tate wherein they reside.”

In this action, birth, not naturalization, is at issue.

One specific issue is: What does “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean?

This specific issue has multiple ramifications, yet the hottest one involves illegal aliens: If illegal aliens’ children are “born … in the United States,” are they “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and therefore “citizens of the United States and of the (s)tate wherein they reside”?

It takes no genius to see what incentives a “yes” answer creates.

≤ ≤ ≤

The Citizenship Clause is up for consideration now because of President Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025, executive order that says: “The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift. The Fourteenth Amendment … rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, … which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.

“But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”’

≤ ≤ ≤

In his brief, the solicitor general–representing the Trump administration–asserts the Citizenship “Clause’s text, its original meaning and history, and th(e c)ourt’s cases confirm that the (Citizenship) Clause extends citizenship only to those … who owe ‘direct and immediate allegiance’ to the (n)ation and may claim its protection. … (C)hildren of citizens meet that criterion, as do children of freed slaves, and children of aliens who ‘have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States.’ …

“U.S. citizenship does not extend to children of aliens who are ‘in itinere (meaning “on the road” or “on the way”) in the country, or abiding there for temporary purposes.’ …

“Only decades after(ward) did a latter-day misconception of the Citizenship Clause take root in the Executive Branch … : that the (Citizenship) Clause grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. territory and subject to U.S. law, including children of temporary visa-holders and children of illegal aliens. … That misinterpretation has, in turn, powerfully incentivized illegal entry into the United States and encouraged ‘birth tourists’ to travel to the United States solely to acquire citizenship for their children.”

≤ ≤ ≤

Interviewed on Fox News, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley–who will be the guest of Advocates for Balance at Chautauqua at 3 p.m. July 13 in the Athenaeum Hotel, during Week 3 of the 2026 Chautauqua Institution season–said that because of this “birth tourism,” “other countries are laughing at us.”

≤ ≤ ≤

The plaintiffs, with counsel of record from the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, disagree with the solicitor general. They assert the Citizenship Clause guarantees “citizenship to all persons born in the United States, subject only to common-law exceptions for foreign sovereigns, ambassadors, warships, and occupying armies, and the uniquely American exception of children born into Native American (t)ribes, reflecting the sovereignty of those (t)ribes.

“More specifically, … even temporary visitors are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States. …

“At English common law, children born to ordinary foreign nationals were subjects, and their parents’ domicile was irrelevant. That rule carried over to America … . The (Citizenship) Clause enshrined that common-law rule.”

≤ ≤ ≤

The court heard the challenge on March 30. A decision is expected by June.

≤ ≤ ≤

You, faithful reader of this column, are smarter than the average bear and have long understood that those in the country illegally are neither “illegal immigrants” nor “undocumented immigrants.”

Each phrase is an oxymoron. Immigration is a legal process, so there’s no such thing as an “illegal immigrant.” And immigration is a process that produces documents, so there’s no such thing as an “undocumented immigrant.”

≤ ≤ ≤

Dr. Randy Elf suggests this one matters for the security of the United States.

(c) 2026 BY RANDY ELF