On December 5, the U.S. Supreme Court said it would hear the two birthright citizenship cases that President Trump had lost in the lower courts. The two cases, which are now combined, are Trump v Barbara, and Trump v State of Washington. One is from the First Circuit and originated in New Hampshire; the other is from the Ninth Circuit. The combined case is 25-365.
Here is the government’s cert petition. It argued that the 14th amendment’s definition of citizen was never intended to cover children born in the U.S. if their parents weren’t in the U.S. legally.
The practical problem with the government’s position is that it creates ambiguity. Currently a birth certificate showing birthplace in the U.S. is accepted as proof of citizenship. But under President Trump’s order, which was issued January 20, 2025, one can’t prove citizenship with a birth certificate. Instead one must produce evidence about one’s parents and their legal status. Some individuals don’t even know who their birth parents are.
At birth – kid takes on nation-state allegiance of father. —- for usa kids = national born USA citizen IF father was/is a USA citizen at time of birth.
After birth – person changes nation-state allegiance
Do new age birth certificates show the nation-state status of alleged fathers of kids ???
Most olde birth certificates did NOT list such father status.
—
American Indians – not naturalized until 1924 and 1940 usa laws
Allegiance stuff – goes baaaack to England 1350 law [while England in 100 Years War with France — English father kids born in France declared English in Act of Parliament]
>>> 1898 wong kim ark op wrong/unconstitutional
may have to be major DNA testing re fathers
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-cole-jr-dc-pipe-bomb-case-plea/
WILL THE PERP GET A TRUMP PARDON ???
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-trumps-challenge-to-birthright-citizenship/
ZILLION OTHER BRC STORIES
NO MORE ANCHOR BABIES! DEPORT THEM ALL!
The Constitution does not list parental citizenship as a condition of citizenship for one born in the U S.
People do like to make up things that are not there even by implication.
DFR –
14-1 amdt — citizen sentence- added in usa Senate in 1866
*subject to the jurisdiction thereof* —
did NOT apply to American Indians or foreign citizens/subjects- PUBLIC/PRIVATE
—
obviously meant to over-rule 1857 Dred Scott SCOTUS op
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
—
ALSO OMITS SLAVES BORN OUT OF USA AND FORCED INTO USA – BEFORE OR AFTER 1807- 1-9-1
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-makes-weird-bid-turn-013405008.html
powerMAD tyrant trump –
mere birthday holiday ???
next – TRUMP month / all years / re-name earth / re-name universe ??? etc.
all males to have *Donald* as first/middle names ??? etc
AZ,
The 1940 Act did not become effective until January 1941.
Need to correct your statement. Also you need to cover the status of Negroes born in Oregon Country to status under the Negro Exclusion prior to the Garfield Act.
Demographics is Destiny. If the supreme court allows birthright citizenship that just means it’s time to replace justices. If that doesn’t work, replace the constitution. The one thing we can never allow is population replacement.
I agree.