Should Supreme Court Decide in Favor of Americans or Illegal Aliens?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns birthright citizenship, a topic that is much in the news. Everyone has their own opinion about how the matter should be resolved. Joseph E. Schmitz has his opinion on the topic and shared his thoughts in an article titled “The Case for Resolving Birthright Citizenship in Trump’s Favor” and published at The Daily Signal. Schmitz was the inspector general of the Department of Defense from April 2002 to September 2005 and was awarded the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service. 

Schmitz recognized that President Donald Trump promised repeatedly while campaigning that he would “end birthright citizenship” and then acted on his promise by issuing his executive order on January 20, 2025. That same executive order was argued in the Supreme Court on April 1, 2026, and Trump attended the court session in person, making history as the first sitting president by doing so. Schmitz then offered his opinion of what the Supreme Court should do.

For reasons explained below, the court should sustain Trump’s executive order because the people elected Trump, and any ambiguities in the 14^th Amendment should be construed in favor of the people – which is different than construing the amendment in favor of Trump. [This would put America and Americans first – not illegal aliens.]

The purpose of Trump’s executive order is clearly stated: “The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift. The Fourteenth Amendment states: ‘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.’ That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’ shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.”

Trump’s executive order also acknowledged that, “The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”

On April 1, the lawyer representing the American Civil Liberties Union in its challenge to Trump’s executive order relied primarily on the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark for her arguments in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of parents not in the U.S. legally. She suggested that this “landmark decision” established that children born on U.S. social are citizens regardless of their parents’ status.

As the parents of the child at issue in Wong Kim Ark were in the U.S. legally, to suggest that this “landmark decision” established birthright citizenship for the children of parents not legally allowed to reside in the United States defies logic.

The issue argued in the Supreme Court on April 1 centered around ambiguities in the phrase in the 14^th Amendment, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Even though the final Section of the 14^th Amendment, Section 5, grants Congress “the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation,” the 14^th Amendment, Congress has never enacted legislation clarifying the ambiguities in the phrase, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

When dealing with ambiguities in the 14^th Amendment, unless or until Congress exercises its powers under Section 5 of the 14^th Amendment to clarify ambiguities by legislative enforcement, the Supreme Court should construe the ambiguities in favor of the people, who reelected Trump….

Trump repeatedly promised to “end birthright citizenship” for children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents, and then did just that on the first day of his second term. Now, the Supreme Court should resolve ambiguities in the 14^th Amendment using contra preferentem and thereby avoid frustrating the will of the people.

It’s our government after all.