(Attorney General’s Office Press Release, March 31, 2026)

By Attorney General Raúl Labrador
Originally published November 7, 2025

For over a century, America has operated under an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause that many now believe is the only constitutionally permissible reading. Automatic citizenship for anyone born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ legal status, has become so accepted that courts have treated it as settled law. Even I agreed with this interpretation for a while. But a closer examination of the text, history, and early precedent raises serious questions about whether this interpretation reflects what the framers intended.

Idaho joined 23 other state attorneys general in urging the United States Supreme Court to restore the original understanding of the Citizenship Clause. The issue is whether the Constitution actually mandates birthright citizenship in all cases, or whether the framers intended something more measured.

The text of the Amendment states that citizenship extends to those “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That second phrase matters. It was added deliberately, and it means something. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, its primary purpose was clear: to constitutionally protect the citizenship rights of freed slaves after the Civil War. Senator Lyman Trumbull, who drafted the related Civil Rights Act of 1866, explicitly stated that the citizenship provision excluded “persons temporarily resident in [the United States] whom we would have no right to make citizens.” Representative John Bingham, the principal architect of the Amendment, emphasized that citizenship required parents who were residents of the United States.

Even those who advocate for automatic birthright citizenship acknowledge that the Citizenship Clause doesn’t apply in all cases. All parties agree it excludes children of foreign diplomats and certain others. The core dispute, therefore, is not whether location of birth alone determines citizenship—everyone agrees it doesn’t—but rather how broadly or narrowly the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should be read.

The historical record is extensive. In the 1880s, two different Secretaries of State denied citizenship to persons born in the United States whose parents remained domiciled overseas. Legal commentators of that era consistently distinguished between the American approach, which required parental domicile or lawful residence, and the British rule of pure birthplace citizenship. Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1834 that citizenship “should not apply to the children of parents … who were abiding there for temporary purposes.”

The stakes here are significant. Over 9 million illegal aliens have entered our nation in recent years, overwhelming our infrastructure and challenging our capacity to assimilate newcomers. Many proceed to interior states after crossing the border illegally. Idaho and other states face real economic, health, and public safety challenges from policies that go beyond what the Constitution requires.

Some critics claim this interpretation is beyond debate, but the historical and legal record is more complex than that narrative suggests. The Supreme Court’s decision in Wong Kim Ark in 1898 involved a child whose parents were lawfully present and permanently domiciled in the United States. The Court repeatedly emphasized throughout that decision that the parents were “residents” and “domiciled within the United States.” That case did not address children of parents present unlawfully or temporarily.

Our amicus brief argues that conferring United States citizenship requires a more meaningful connection than mere physical presence by happenstance or illegality. The original understanding repeatedly pointed to parental domicile or lawful permanent residence as the measuring stick for the requisite connection to United States jurisdiction.

This is about respecting what the Constitution actually says and what its framers intended. It’s about protecting Idaho families from bearing the costs of a policy that encourages illegal immigration. And it’s about ensuring that citizenship remains meaningful, rather than being reduced to an accident of geography.

The Trump Administration is asking the Supreme Court to adopt an interpretation that aligns with the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause. Idaho stands with that effort because we believe the Constitution should be interpreted according to its text and original public meaning, not according to what is politically convenient or what later administrations may have preferred.

The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to provide clarity on this fundamental issue. Whatever the Court ultimately decides, Idaho will continue defending the constitutional principles that protect state sovereignty and the rule of law.