The Supreme Court is once more hearing arguments on whether President Donald Trump can deny citizenship to children born to oldsters who’re in the USA illegally or temporarily.
The Wednesday case stems from an executive order Trump signed on the primary day of his second term ending what’s referred to as birthright citizenship, which guarantees citizenship to almost everyone born on U.S. soil.
While the concept has been a part of U.S. law for well over a century, it is comparatively rare all over the world.
What’s birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship is predicated on the legal principle of jus soli, or “right of soil.”
Within the U.S., the suitable was enshrined within the Structure after the Civil War, partially to be sure that former slaves can be residents.
“All individuals born or naturalized in the USA and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are residents of the USA,” the 14th Amendment states.
Within the late 1800s, birthright citizenship was legally expanded to the kids of immigrants.
Get breaking National news
Get breaking Canada news delivered to your inbox because it happens so you will not miss a trending story.
Wong Kim Ark, who was born within 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 within the U.S., regardless of their parents’ legal status.
There are only a handful of birthright exceptions, comparable to for kids born within the U.S. to foreign diplomats.
How is birthright citizenship seen all over the world?
Only about three dozen countries, nearly all of them within the Americas, guarantee citizenship to children born on their territory.
Most countries follow the principle of jus sanguinis, or “right of blood,” with a baby’s citizenship based on the citizenship of their parents, regardless of where they’re born.
Not one of the 27 member states of the European Union, for instance, grant automatic, unconditional citizenship to children born on their territories to foreign residents. The situation is comparable across much of Asia, the Middle East and Africa.
Some countries take a mixed approach
Some countries use a mixture of principles, comparable to parenthood, residency and ethnicity, to come to a decision a baby’s citizenship.
Australia, for instance, allowed birthright citizenship until 1986. But starting that August, children born there could only grow to be residents if not less than one parent was an Australian citizen or a everlasting resident.
Things shifted the opposite way in Germany, which modified its citizenship laws in 2024.
Until then, citizenship by birth required that not less than one parent was German. Starting in 2024, though, children born in Germany to non-German parents are routinely granted German citizenship if one parent has been legally living within the country for greater than five years with unlimited residency status.
Citizenship laws were liberalized because “studies have shown that the education prospects of kids and teenagers with a migration background are higher, the earlier they were granted German citizenship,” the federal government wrote on the time.
What’s the Trump administration’s argument?
Supporters of birthright restrictions within the U.S. give attention to a handful of words within 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’re within the country illegally.
A series of judges have ruled against the administration and the order has been repeatedly placed on hold by lower courts.
Wednesday’s case originated in Latest Hampshire, where a U.S. district judge ruled the order “likely violates” each the Structure and federal law.
© 2026 The Canadian Press