Birthright Citizenship Lab

Written By Jonathan Milner
Birthright Citizenship | AP Gov Lab | Social Studies Lab
🎓 TEACHER SETUP Enter your email so students can submit their work:
Social Studies LabBirthright Citizenship Lab
AP Gov Unit 3 | Civil Liberties | 14th Amendment
Who Is an American?

The 14th Amendment has guaranteed citizenship to everyone born on U.S. soil since 1868. Now, for the first time in over 150 years, the Supreme Court is being asked to reconsider it. Before we dive in — where do you stand?

🗳️ WHERE DO YOU STAND? — VOTE BEFORE YOU READ ANYTHING

Your Initial Position on Birthright Citizenship

Should children born on U.S. soil automatically receive U.S. citizenship, regardless of their parents immigration status?

📜 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Why We Have the 14th Amendment

1857 — DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD
Chief Justice Roger Taney delivered one of the most notorious decisions in Supreme Court history: enslaved people and their descendants were NOT citizens and had NO rights that a white man was bound to respect. The Court held that the Constitution was designed to protect only white people. Dred Scott — a man who had lived in free states — was still property, not a person.
This decision helped ignite the Civil War. It was the constitutional crisis that made the 14th Amendment necessary.
1861-1865 — THE CIVIL WAR
The deadliest war in American history — over 620,000 dead — was fought in large part over the question of slavery and citizenship. When the Union won, Congress faced a fundamental question: how do you guarantee that the freedom won by the 13th Amendment (abolishing slavery) could never be taken away by states?
1868 — THE 14TH AMENDMENT IS RATIFIED
Ratified three years after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was designed to be the most comprehensive reversal of Dred Scott possible. It established birthright citizenship, equal protection under the law, and due process rights. The drafters were explicit: they wanted to make it impossible for any future government to strip citizenship from formerly enslaved people or their children.
1898 — UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK
The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that a U.S.-born child of Chinese immigrants was a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. This case established the modern interpretation of birthright citizenship that has governed U.S. law for 126 years. It has never been directly overruled.
📌 AP Exam Connection: The 14th Amendment appears in dozens of landmark cases — Brown v. Board (equal protection), Gideon v. Wainwright (selective incorporation), Baker v. Carr (one person one vote), and now potentially Trump v. Barbara. Know this amendment cold.
📖 CLOSE READING — THE 14TH AMENDMENT, SECTION 1

The Text — Read Every Word

Hover over the highlighted phrases to see what they mean. Each color highlights a different constitutional concept.

🟡 Citizenship Clause 🟢 Due Process Clause 🔵 Equal Protection Clause
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.Citizenship Clause
This is the birthright citizenship provision. "Born...in the United States" = jus soli (right of the soil). "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the disputed phrase — does it exclude children of undocumented immigrants? No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;Due Process Clause
The government must follow fair procedures before taking away life, liberty, or property. This applies to ALL PERSONS — not just citizens. Undocumented immigrants also have due process rights under this clause. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Equal Protection Clause
The foundation of anti-discrimination law in America. Used in Brown v. Board (1954), Baker v. Carr (1962), and countless other cases. Note: applies to any PERSON within its jurisdiction — not just citizens.
📖 GLOSSARY — KEY TERMS FOR CLOSE READING

Click any term to expand its definition.

✍️ YOUR INTERPRETATION

What Does the 14th Amendment Say About Birthright Citizenship?

Based on your close reading and the glossary, write what you think the 14th Amendment says. Does it guarantee birthright citizenship to ALL persons born in the U.S.? Are there exceptions? What does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to you?

⚖️ TRUMP v. BARBARA (2025)

The Case That Could Change Everything

Background: On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas. Multiple states sued immediately.

The Case: Trump v. Barbara (the case name refers to the lead plaintiff) is a consolidated case combining multiple challenges to EO 14160. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis. The central legal question: does the 14th Amendment require birthright citizenship for ALL persons born on U.S. soil, or does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" exclude children of undocumented immigrants?

⚠️ Why it matters: If the Supreme Court upholds Trump's executive order, it would be the most significant restriction of the 14th Amendment since its ratification in 1868. Estimates suggest 4.4 million people born in the U.S. to at least one undocumented parent could lose their citizenship status.
📋 FRIENDS OF THE COURT — BRIEFS IN SUPPORT OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

These Parties Argue the 14th Amendment Protects Birthright Citizenship

📋 FRIENDS OF THE COURT — BRIEFS OPPOSING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

These Parties Argue the 14th Amendment Permits Restrictions

⚖️ YOU ARE THE SWING JUSTICE

Write Your Opinion

You are the deciding vote. You have read the amicus briefs, studied the 14th Amendment, and understand the history. Write a brief judicial opinion — only 2-3 sentences — explaining how you would rule in Trump v. Barbara and why. Be specific: cite the text, cite the history, and acknowledge the strongest counterargument.

🏛️ JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY

How Justices Read the Constitution

ORIGINALISM / JUDICIAL CONSERVATISM
The Constitution means what the Framers originally intended it to mean. Judges should not update or expand constitutional meaning over time — that is the job of the amendment process. Originalists ask: "What did this text mean in 1868 when it was ratified?" Associated with: Scalia, Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito.
LIVING CONSTITUTIONALISM / JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
The Constitution is a living document whose meaning evolves with society. Judges can and should interpret constitutional provisions to address modern circumstances the Framers could not have anticipated. Associated with: Warren Court, Brennan, Marshall, Sotomayor, Kagan.
TEXTUALISM
Focus on the literal text of the law, not the intent behind it. The most important question is: what do these words, in their ordinary meaning, say? Textualists argue that the plain text of "born...in the United States" is clear — no exceptions needed. Associated with: Gorsuch, Thomas.
STARE DECISIS (JUDICIAL RESTRAINT)
Courts should respect and follow prior precedent. Overturning settled law requires extraordinary justification. In birthright citizenship, 126 years of precedent (since Wong Kim Ark, 1898) and 157 years of constitutional practice are extremely strong arguments for restraint. Associated with: Roberts, Jackson.
📌 The Critical Irony: Conservative originalists face a dilemma: a strict textual and historical reading of the 14th Amendment actually SUPPORTS birthright citizenship. The framers of the 14th Amendment explicitly intended to grant citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil. To restrict birthright citizenship requires departing from the original text and intent — which is supposed to be what conservatives oppose.
👨‍⚖️ THE CURRENT COURT — HOVER FOR PHILOSOPHY

Nine Justices. Six Conservatives. Three Liberals.

Hover over each justice to see their judicial philosophy and predicted vote. The court photo shows their ideological leanings over time (Martin-Quinn Scores).

Current Supreme Court
✅ LIKELY TO UPHOLD BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
❌ LIKELY TO OVERTURN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
⚠️ UNCERTAIN — THE SWING VOTES
📊 MARTIN-QUINN SCORES — IDEOLOGICAL TRACKING

How Conservative Is This Court Over Time?

The Martin-Quinn Score measures justices on a scale from most conservative (positive) to most liberal (negative), based on their actual voting patterns. The chart below shows how the ideological composition of the court has shifted dramatically since 2020.

Martin-Quinn Scores Chart
📌 Notice: Thomas and Alito are the most conservative in modern history. Sotomayor and Kagan are among the most liberal. Roberts has moved toward the center. The current court is the most conservative since at least the 1930s — which is why this case is being heard at all.
📋 PREDICTED MAJORITY OPINION

Based on Martin-Quinn Scores — How the Court Will Likely Rule

The following is a projected majority opinion based on the predicted voting alignment. Note: this is a prediction, not an actual ruling.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. Barbara et al.
On Writ of Certiorari — PROJECTED RULING (Educational Simulation)

MAJORITY OPINION (Projected: 5-4 or 6-3)

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and potentially Barrett, delivering the opinion of the Court:

The question before this Court is whether the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" — extends birthright citizenship to children born to parents who are not lawfully present in the United States. We hold, in a narrow ruling, that it does not as a constitutional mandate binding on the executive branch in its immigration enforcement, while acknowledging the significant reliance interests created by 126 years of practice under Wong Kim Ark.

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is not merely geographic. A person who is present in the United States without lawful authorization, owing allegiance to a foreign nation, cannot be said to be fully "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States in the complete political sense contemplated by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. The framers intended to overrule Dred Scott and grant citizenship to formerly enslaved persons and their children — they did not address, and likely did not contemplate, the complex immigration circumstances of the 21st century.

Stare decisis concerns weigh heavily in this case. We do not lightly disturb settled constitutional practice. However, the Court finds that Wong Kim Ark was decided in a different immigration context and that its scope has been extended beyond what the historical record supports. Accordingly, we remand to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

PROJECTED DISSENT (Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and potentially Roberts)

The majority today accomplishes what no court has done in 157 years: it strips citizenship from American-born persons on the basis of their parents immigration status. The text of the Fourteenth Amendment is clear. "All persons born...in the United States." All means all. The framers knew how to write exceptions — they chose not to. Today the majority rewrites a constitutional text it finds inconvenient, doing so without any amendment from We the People. Dissent.

⚠️ Important caveat: This is an educational simulation based on Martin-Quinn Score predictions. The actual Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Barbara may differ significantly. Courts are unpredictable, opinions are negotiated, and justices sometimes surprise everyone. What this simulation shows is the DIRECTION of judicial philosophy on the current court, not a certainty.
📰 CONSEQUENCES

What Happens If the Court Overturns Birthright Citizenship?

The effects of ending birthright citizenship would ripple through every corner of American society. Here is what we know — and what we do not know — about the practical consequences.

Who Would Be Affected — Scale of Impact

4.4M
U.S.-born people with at least one undocumented parent (Pew Research, 2023)
11M
Estimated undocumented immigrants in the U.S. — parents of affected children
1868
Year the 14th Amendment was ratified — 157 years of settled constitutional practice at stake

Specific Consequences — Each One Has Real People Behind It

📋 ENFORCEMENT CHALLENGES

How Would This Actually Be Enforced?

The practical difficulties of enforcing an end to birthright citizenship are staggering — and would require entirely new government infrastructure:

📋 Birth Certificate Documentation: Hospitals would need to investigate and verify the immigration status of every parent at birth. Currently, birth certificates are issued without regard to parental immigration status. Creating a two-tier birth certificate system would require entirely new federal and state infrastructure.
📋 People Without Documentation: Millions of people currently have no birth certificate at all — particularly in rural areas, among Indigenous communities, and among populations that distrust government institutions. How would these people prove citizenship? A ruling restricting birthright citizenship could create legal limbo for people who have no way to prove their parents' status at birth.
⚠️ Retroactivity Question: Would the ruling apply only to children born after the decision, or retroactively to the 4.4 million people already born? Retroactive application would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis — stripping citizenship from millions who have lived their entire lives as Americans.
⚠️ Impact on Racial and Ethnic Minorities: The enforcement of any birthright citizenship restriction would disproportionately fall on Latino, Asian American, and Black communities — groups that are already subject to higher rates of documentation requests and racial profiling. Civil rights organizations warn this would effectively create a system of racial verification for citizenship.
⚠️ Statelessness: Children born to parents from countries that do not offer jus soli citizenship could become STATELESS — citizens of no country — a condition that violates international human rights norms that the United States has historically championed.
📰 YOU ARE THE JOURNALIST

Write the Headline and Lead Paragraph

The Supreme Court has just ruled 5-4 to uphold the executive order limiting birthright citizenship. You are the lead reporter for the New York Times. Write the headline and the first two sentences of the story. Be specific, accurate, and remember: headlines capture attention, leads capture the most important facts.

🔔 MORE LABS LIKE THIS

If you found this engaging, there are dozens more current events labs, interactive reviews, and exam prep tools inside the Liberty Bell Ringer Membership.

🐾 Join the Bell Ringer Membership
Jonathan Milner

Civics Maven!

https://www.gopopro.com/
Next

Executive Order Whole Class Activity