Skip to main content

Here’s a look at birthright citizenship, and how the world sees it, as Supreme Court case looms

The Supreme Court is once again hearing arguments on whether President Donald Trump can deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily.

The Wednesday case stems from an executive order Trump signed on the first day of his second term ending what’s known as birthright citizenship, which guarantees citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.

While the concept has been part of U.S. law for well over a century, it is relatively rare around the world.

What is birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship is based on the legal principle of jus soli, or “right of soil.”

In the U.S., the right was enshrined in the Constitution after the Civil War, in part to ensure that former slaves would be citizens.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” the 14th Amendment states.

In the late 1800s, birthright citizenship was legally expanded to the children of immigrants.

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, sued after traveling overseas and being denied reentry into the U.S. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that the amendment gives citizenship to everyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents’ legal status.

Today there are only a handful of birthright exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats.

How is birthright citizenship seen around the world?

Only about three dozen countries, nearly all of them in the Americas, guarantee citizenship to children born on their territory.

Most countries follow the principle of jus sanguinis, or “right of blood,” with a child’s citizenship based on the citizenship of their parents, no matter where they are born.

None of the 27 member states of the European Union, for example, grant automatic, unconditional citizenship to children born on their territories to foreign citizens. The situation is similar across much of Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

Some countries take a mixed approach

Some countries use a combination of principles, such as parenthood, residency and ethnicity, to decide a child’s citizenship.

Australia, for example, allowed birthright citizenship until 1986. But starting that August, children born there could only become citizens if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or a permanent resident.

Things shifted the other way in Germany, which changed its citizenship laws in 2024.

Until then, citizenship by birth required that at least one parent was German. Starting in 2024, though, children born in Germany to non-German parents are automatically granted German citizenship if one parent has been legally living in the country for more than five years with unlimited residency status.

Citizenship laws were liberalized because “studies have shown that the education prospects of children and teenagers with a migration background are better, the sooner they were granted German citizenship,” the government wrote at the time.

What is the Trump administration’s argument?

Supporters of birthright restrictions in the U.S. focus on a handful of words in the constitutional amendment: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

That phrase, they argue, means the U.S. can deny citizenship to children born to women who are in the country illegally.

A series of judges have ruled against the administration and the order has been repeatedly put on hold by lower courts.

Wednesday’s case originated in New Hampshire, where a U.S. district judge ruled the order “likely violates” both the Constitution and federal law.

___

AP reporter Kirsten Grieshaber contributed to this story from Berlin.

Supreme Court allows Brian Flores to sue NFL for discriminating against Black coaches

(CNN) — The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to take up an appeal from the National Football League in a class action lawsuit from Brian Flores and other Black coaches who have claimed racial discrimination.By passing on the appeal, the court’s decision leaves in place an appeals court ruling that allowed the lawsuit to go to trial and rejected an effort by the league to force Flores into arbitration.Flores, who is currently the defensive coordinator for the Minnesota Vikings, was previously a coach with the New England Patriots, the Miami Dolphins and the Pittsburgh Steelers. He sued the league in 2022, claiming systematic racism when it came to the hiring and promotion of Black coaches.The NFL sought to force Flores and two other coaches into arbitration, an out-of-court legal process to resolve disputes viewed as less favorable to plaintiffs. But the New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in February balked at that effort, allowing Flores to take his claims against the league to court.Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the decision to not hear the case.Flores won in the appeals court because of how the NFL structures its arbitration requirements: It designates the league commissioner, Roger Goodell, as the default arbitrator. The 2nd Circuit said that arrangement provided “for arbitration in name only.”US Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes, nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton, wrote that the NFL’s process “fails to bear even a passing resemblance” of traditional arbitration procedures.“It contractually provides for no independent arbitral forum, no bilateral dispute resolution, and no procedure,” Cabranes wrote. Instead, he said, it “offends basic presumptions of our arbitration jurisprudence” by submitting Flores’ claims to the discretion of one of his opponents in the case, the NFL.“An employer – whether a professional sports league, restaurant, retail store or otherwise – cannot force employees to arbitrate statutory employment discrimination claims before the employer’s own chief executive,” Flores’ attorneys told the Supreme Court.But the NFL told the justices in its appeal that the appeals court ruling would give judges “free-floating discretion” to invalidate arbitration requirements based “solely on their subjective determinations” that some of the procedures are “unfair.” That, the NFL said, “undermines the very predictability and uniformity” that federal arbitration law requires.The conservative Supreme Court has repeatedly beefed up the ability of companies to enforce arbitration agreements.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story

Related stories

Supreme Court allows Brian Flores to sue NFL for discriminating against Black coaches

Supreme Court seems poised to reject Trump’s birthright citizenship limits as he attends arguments

Trump plans to attend Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing on his bid to limit birthright citizenship