Yes. Birthright citizenship in the Constitution comes from the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which makes anyone born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” a citizen at birth. Ratified in 1868, that guarantee has been the law for more than 150 years, and the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark confirmed that it applies broadly, with only a handful of narrow exceptions. A 2025 executive order tried to narrow it further and was immediately blocked in federal court; as of early 2026, the constitutional rule has not changed.
The Text and What It Does
The Citizenship Clause reads: “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.”1Congress.gov. U.S. Constitution – Fourteenth Amendment The clause is self-executing. Congress does not have to pass anything for it to work. If you are born on American soil and meet the jurisdiction requirement, you are a citizen the moment you are born.
The amendment was written to overrule the Supreme Court’s 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which held that people of African descent could never be citizens under the Constitution and that no state could make them citizens either.2National Archives. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) By putting citizenship in the Constitution itself, the Fourteenth Amendment took the question out of the hands of individual states and out of the reach of ordinary politics.
What “Subject to the Jurisdiction” Means
Nearly every fight over birthright citizenship comes down to those five words. The definitive reading comes from United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese-citizen parents who lived in the city and ran a business there. After a trip to China, the federal government refused to let him back in, arguing he was not a citizen.3Justia. United States v. Wong Kim Ark
The Court ruled 6-2 that he was a citizen at birth. Drawing on centuries of English common law, it held that “subject to the jurisdiction” means being required to obey American law, not having some prior political tie to the country. Because Wong Kim Ark’s parents lived in the United States and were bound by its laws like anyone else, their son was born under American jurisdiction. That reading has stood for more than 125 years. No later Supreme Court decision has narrowed it, and no act of Congress has displaced it.
The immigration status of the parents does not change the result. Parents who entered the country without legal authorization are still subject to American criminal and civil law, so children born to them on U.S. soil are citizens. The same applies to parents here on temporary visas, on work permits, or in any other status.
The Exceptions
The Court in Wong Kim Ark identified only narrow categories of people physically present in the country who fall outside American jurisdiction:
- Children of accredited foreign diplomats. Diplomats are immune from U.S. law under international agreements, so their children born here do not acquire citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal regulations allow such a child to be recorded as a lawful permanent resident instead.4U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. USCIS Policy Manual Volume 7 Part O Chapter 3 – Children Born in the United States to Accredited Diplomats5eCFR. 8 CFR 1101.3 – Creation of Record of Lawful Permanent Resident Status for Person Born Under Diplomatic Status in the United States
- Children born to enemy forces occupying U.S. territory during wartime. This has no modern application but remains part of the framework.
- Children born on foreign government vessels. A foreign warship in an American port is treated as an extension of its home country, so a birth on board is not a birth in the United States.6U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual. 8 FAM 301.1 – Acquisition by Birth in the United States
Everyone else born on U.S. soil is a citizen. Native Americans were once a separate category under Elk v. Wilkins (1884), which treated tribal members as owing allegiance to their tribes rather than to the United States.7Justia. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) Congress closed that gap with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, and federal law now confirms that Native Americans born in the United States are citizens at birth.8Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 8 U.S.C. 1401 – Nationals and Citizens of United States at Birth
Where the Guarantee Applies
Birth in any of the 50 states or the District of Columbia triggers Fourteenth Amendment citizenship. The picture in U.S. territories is more layered, because citizenship there comes from congressional statutes rather than directly from the Constitution.
- Puerto Rico: anyone born there on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, is a citizen at birth.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 8 U.S.C. 1402 – Persons Born in Puerto Rico on or After April 11, 1899
- U.S. Virgin Islands: anyone born there on or after February 25, 1927, and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, is a citizen at birth.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 8 U.S. Code 1406 – Persons Living in and Born in the Virgin Islands
- Guam: federal law extends birthright citizenship on the same terms.
- Northern Mariana Islands: under a covenant with the United States, everyone born in the Commonwealth and subject to U.S. jurisdiction is a citizen at birth.11Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 48 U.S.C. 1801 – Approval of Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
American Samoa is different. Federal law treats it as an “outlying possession,” and people born there are U.S. nationals, not citizens.12Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 8 U.S.C. 1101 – Definitions13Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 8 U.S.C. 1408 – Nationals but Not Citizens of the United States at Birth Nationals can live and work anywhere in the country and hold U.S. passports, but they cannot vote in federal or state elections. In Fitisemanu v. United States (2021), the Tenth Circuit held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not itself require birthright citizenship in American Samoa, noting that American Samoa’s elected leaders opposed having citizenship imposed without their consent.14Justia Law. Fitisemanu v. United States, No. 20-4017 (10th Cir. 2021)
Ships and planes do not count as U.S. soil. According to the State Department, a child born on a U.S.-registered vessel on the high seas is not considered born in the United States for citizenship purposes; that child’s citizenship would depend on the rules for children born abroad.6U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual. 8 FAM 301.1 – Acquisition by Birth in the United States
Children Born Abroad Are Covered by Statute, Not the Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment only reaches births on American soil. Citizenship for children born overseas to U.S. citizen parents comes from federal statute, which Congress can modify. If both parents are citizens, one must have lived in the United States or its possessions before the child’s birth. If only one parent is a citizen, that parent must have been physically present in the United States for at least five years, with at least two of those after age 14.15Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 8 U.S.C. 1401 – Nationals and Citizens of United States at Birth Military service and government employment abroad can count toward those requirements. This is not constitutional birthright citizenship, and it does not affect the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee for children born inside the country.
The 2025 Executive Order and Where Things Stand
On January 20, 2025, the President signed an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” It directed federal agencies to stop issuing documents recognizing citizenship for children born in the United States when the mother was unlawfully present and the father was not a citizen or lawful permanent resident, or when the mother was lawfully present only temporarily (for example, on a tourist or student visa) and the father was not a citizen or permanent resident.16The White House. Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship The order was set to take effect 30 days after signing.
It never did. A federal judge in Washington state issued a temporary restraining order within three days. Judges in Maryland, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts each blocked it as well, with several calling it plainly unconstitutional under existing precedent. The case reached the Supreme Court in mid-2025 on a procedural question about nationwide injunctions. In Trump v. CASA, decided in June 2025, the Court ruled that lower courts should generally avoid sweeping universal injunctions but did not address whether the executive order itself was constitutional.
As of early 2026, the substantive question is still open. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a related case, Trump v. Barbara, in April 2026, and a decision is pending. No part of the executive order has been enforced. Children born in the United States continue to receive citizenship under the same rule that has applied since Wong Kim Ark: born on U.S. soil, subject to American jurisdiction, citizen at birth.