Looking to limit birthright citizenship, Trump turns to an 1884 Supreme Court ruling against a Native American man

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Supreme Court

Looking to limit birthright citizenship, Trump turns to an 1884 Supreme Court ruling against a Native American man

Experts on Native American law say the Elk v. Wilkins ruling has no bearing on whether the children of immigrants without permanent legal status can be denied birthright citizenship.

March 29, 2026, 5:00 AM EDT / Updated March 29, 2026, 9:15 AM EDT
By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON — In a moment that could take on new significance almost 150 years later, Omaha election official Charles Wilkins on April 5, 1880, refused to register John Elk to vote on the grounds that he was Native American, and therefore not an American citizen.

Elk — believed to have been a member of what is now known as the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska — objected, saying he had severed all ties with his tribe and had willingly subjected himself to the authority of the United States. ... He launched a legal challenge, arguing among other things that he was a citizen at birth because he was born within United States territory.

But the Supreme Court, in an 1884 case called Elk v. Wilkins, ruled against him, saying that Native Americans born within the territory of the United States did not have birthright citizenship. They had the same status as “the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,” the court said.

President Donald Trump’s administration is now citing that case as it defends his plan to end automatic birthright citizenship, putting a new spin on the long-standing interpretation of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case on Wednesday.

{snip}

Lawrence Hurley
Lawrence Hurley is a senior Supreme Court reporter for NBC News.

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. I don't think even the MAGA court will buy this argument

Especially if this is the only case they can find to support their position.

EDIT: of course, I mean besides Sammy and Clarence.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. In Supreme Court fight over birthright citizenship, a great-grandson hears echoes of 1898

In Supreme Court fight over birthright citizenship, a great-grandson hears echoes of 1898

By Andrew Chung
March 29, 2026 6:02 AM EDT Updated 14 hours ago

Summary
• A Trump directive would limit birthright citizenship
• Supreme Court will mull directive's legality on Wednesday
• Its 1898 ruling confirmed citizenship by birth on US soil
• US Constitution's citizenship language in the spotlight

March 29 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's challenge to the longstanding rule that anyone born in the United States, with only narrow exceptions, is automatically a citizen echoes a similar dispute that took place on the shores of San Francisco more than a century ago.

In the late 19th century, amid a wave of fervent anti-Chinese sentiment, the U.S. government sought to prevent a young man named Wong Kim Ark from re-entering the country upon returning by steamship from a trip to his parents' homeland of China, ​contending that, despite being born in the United States, he was not a citizen.

On March 28, 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, recognizing that the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment grants citizenship by birth on U.S. soil, including to those like Wong whose parents were foreign nationals.

A DESCENDANT WORRIES

Now ‌his great-grandson, a San Francisco area resident, worries that the principle enshrined by his ancestor's case may be in peril. ... "Wong Kim Ark knew he was an American. And he demanded that his citizenship be recognized. He was willing to stand up," Norman Wong, 76, said in an interview. "Wong Kim Ark didn't make the rule. He affirmed the rule."

{snip}

Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham