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

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. 'Alarm bells' ring as Trump resurrects racist arguments in major legal case: experts

The 14th Amendment is clear to me and the arguments being raised by trump are weak. The authority cited by trump's DOJ is really weak.

'Alarm bells' ring as Trump resurrects racist arguments in major legal case: experts

— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2026-03-30T14:30:15Z

https://www.rawstory.com/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-2676636588

The Trump administration is relying on legal arguments developed by Confederate officers and 19th-century xenophobes to challenge birthright citizenship in a Supreme Court case expected to be decided by summer, drawing criticism from legal scholars who say the administration is recycling deeply racist historical precedents.

The administration's Supreme Court brief cites Alexander Porter Morse, a Confederate officer and Louisiana attorney who advocated for legalized segregation in the 1896 case that established the "separate but equal" doctrine that propped up Jim Crow laws, reported the Washington Post.

"The Trump administration has tapped Morse as an authority in its push to upend long-settled law that virtually everyone born in the United States is a citizen," the Post reported. "Over a century ago, Morse was among a trio of thinkers who spearheaded a failed effort — steeped in anti-Black and anti-Chinese racism — to erase birthright citizenship. The Trump administration is reviving their arguments to make its case today, some legal scholars say."

The administration also relies on arguments from Francis Wharton, a legal scholar who wrote that Chinese immigrants were insufficiently "civilized," and George D. Collins, a San Francisco attorney whose career ended in scandal.

Lucy Salyer, a University of New Hampshire history professor, expressed concern about the administration's approach. "If you know the history and the broader context of what they were trying to achieve, it does ring alarm bells," she said.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. The man behind Donald Trump's push to end birthright citizenship (suspended attorney John Eastman)

John Eastman has been advancing his fringe interpretation of the 14th Amendment for decades.

The man behind Donald Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship www.politico.com/news/2026/03...

— Timothy McBride (@mcbridetd.bsky.social) 2026-03-31T14:08:51.193Z

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/31/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-john-eastman-00851127

Long before John Eastman helped devise Donald Trump’s bid to overturn the 2020 election, he had another pet cause: ending birthright citizenship.....

Yet, when Trump signed his order on the subject last year, he made no mention of the former law school dean and Supreme Court clerk’s long advocacy for the cause. And while the Justice Department’s public briefs closely track Eastman’s arguments, they don’t cite his writings or acknowledge his role as the theory’s leading evangelist.

“This is his issue,” said Linda Chavez, a longtime conservative activist and senior Reagan White House official who has sparred publicly with Eastman on the subject. “I’ve known John forever and this has been a bee in his bonnet for as long as I’ve known him.”....

Eastman has been advancing his fringe interpretation of the 14th Amendment since 2005, racking up more than 100 op-eds, interviews, law review articles, debates, speeches and legislative hearings.....

And Eastman is still battling the fallout from the 2020 election. He helped concoct the theory that Trump could cling to power by having Vice President Mike Pence refuse to count some states’ electoral votes. That didn’t persuade Pence, but did score Eastman a speaking role at Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021 rally on the Ellipse, where Eastman aired unproven claims of election fraud.

He subsequently lost his professorship at Chapman University and has been suspended from practicing law in California. He’s appealing a decision calling for his permanent disbarment in that state.

Eastman needs to be finally disbarred. This asshole is a disgrace to the legal profession.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. Former Trump lawyer John Eastman arriving at the Supreme Court for the birthright citizenship debate.

This made me smile

Link to tweet