Reading through some slightly old news but didn't see this yet. The birth right citizen case had a bunch of people offer their two cents. Honestly, interesting article.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/birthright-citizenship-the-exceptions-provide-the-rule/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/a-guide-to-some-of-the-briefs-in-support-of-ending-birthright-citizenship/
Quote from One Article:
The 14th Amendment provides that “[a]ll persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Trump administration’s argument centers on the idea that to obtain citizenship at birth, you must be “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” which in turn means that you must be “completely subject” to this country’s “political jurisdiction,” “owing it ‘direct and immediate allegiance.’” The children of noncitizens who live only temporarily in the United States, the federal government contends, “owe primary allegiance to their parents’ home countries, not the United States” and therefore are not covered by the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.
Law professor Ilan Wurman offers a closer look at the rule in place in early English and U.S. history. He contends that, contrary to conventional wisdom, birthright citizenship was not universally available but was instead only available to the children of “parents under the sovereign’s protection. In exchange for that protection,” he writes, “the parents owed the sovereign allegiance” – a rule that “is unlikely to have applied” to the children of undocumented immigrants, whose parents would not have been under the sovereign’s protection. And “the leading drafters of the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment,” he says, “appear to have presumed temporary visitors would be excluded” from birthright citizenship because they were not subject to the “complete jurisdiction” of the United States.
