Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the liberal members of the court in the 5-4 decision to reject President Donald Trump's contention that the common view of birthright citizenship is wrong, asserting that children of noncitizens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.
Jessica Vaughan, a former foreign service officer with the U.S. State Department who now serves as director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, acknowledges that "most of us on the restrictionist side were not expecting the court to endorse Trump's executive order necessarily."
"We were looking for a little more clarity on the ability of Congress to update our laws and adjust them in the context of our modern world," she tells AFN. "So, I was a little surprised that they were kind of stuck in this idea that this is some kind of small problem."
Vaughan is pleased that some Republican lawmakers are taking action.
"Sen. [Eric] Schmitt from Missouri is ready to introduce a bill that he had drafted and ready to go that's going to define 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' and clarify what Congress just assumed everyone understood years ago," Vaughan notes.
Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) has sponsored the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025 (H.R. 569), the principal legislation currently before Congress that would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The bill was introduced in January 2025 and remains in the House Judiciary Committee, and the Senate companion bill (S. 304) remains pending without Senate passage.
These proposals would limit automatic citizenship to babies with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident (green card holder), or serving in the U.S. military. Children born to parents who are in the country illegally or on many temporary visas would no longer automatically receive citizenship under those bills.
Because the Supreme Court said the 14th Amendment protects birthright citizenship as it is currently understood, many legal experts believe Congress cannot permanently change the policy through a regular law alone. Instead, a constitutional amendment — which would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate and approval from 38 states — is needed.
"This is not the end of this issue in any way," Vaughan asserts. "The roadmap to fixing it is not as clear as a lot of us hoped for, but there does seem to be a path forward."
Vaughan hopes that Congress will have the courage to address this issue.
