The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that birthright citizenship applies to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of immigration or visa status. The decision was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the Court’s liberal wing to uphold the traditional interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.
However, an official transcript of a speech from Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, the man who introduced the 14th Amendment, has been circulating, highlighting his view of how the amendment was originally intended to be interpreted.
Official transcript from the US Senate on May 30, 1866. Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the 14th Amendment:
— Andrew Kolvet (@AndrewKolvet) June 30, 2026
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens...”
SCOTUS got this ruling 100% wrong. A total travesty. pic.twitter.com/eNaY2W8BjZ
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
The Court’s split ultimately turned on several key factors, but the central argument in dissent, particularly from Justice Clarence Thomas, focused on the concept of domicile, or legal residence. Thomas argued that domicile has historically been inseparable from citizenship.
Under that framework, individuals without legal domicile in the United States, such as illegal aliens or those on temporary visas, would not confer birthright citizenship to their children. This interpretation, he suggested, aligns with the original understanding of the 14th Amendment and would still be consistent with the Court’s precedent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In his view, applying a domicile standard would preserve the amendment’s original intent while addressing concerns raised by the majority during oral arguments.
As the Court declined to narrow birthright citizenship, Republicans are pivoting back to Congress where the problem could have been solved years ago. Rep. Andy Ogles is preparing to introduce the “Anchors Away Act,” a proposal to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act by blocking entry to pregnant foreign nationals who seek to give birth on U.S. soil to secure citizenship for their children.
Barring a reversal from the Supreme Court, there appears to be no clear path to resolving the issue.