Wall Street Journal Doubts Trump's Birthright Citizenship Case Will Survive Supreme Court

Conservative editorial board argues Trump's executive order to redefine 'jurisdiction' in the 14th Amendment is unlikely to succeed.

Apr. 1, 2026 at 12:11am by Ben Kaplan

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

President Donald Trump's executive order repealing birthright citizenship is before the Supreme Court this week, and the Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial board has a blunt message for him. The board argues that Trump's attempt to redefine 'jurisdiction' in the 14th Amendment to exclude babies born to temporary visa holders and undocumented immigrants is unlikely to succeed, as the overwhelming consensus of legal experts has long interpreted birthright citizenship to apply to anyone born in the U.S. except in very narrow circumstances.

Why it matters

The case has major implications for immigration policy and the rights of millions of U.S. residents. If Trump's interpretation were to prevail, it could strip citizenship from children of temporary workers and undocumented immigrants, with significant consequences for families and communities across the country.

The details

The case ultimately comes down to the interpretation of the phrase, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' Judges and legal experts have long held this to mean anyone born here except in very narrow circumstances, such as the children of foreign diplomats or an invading army. However, the Trump administration argues the 'jurisdiction' clause should be read much more narrowly to exclude the children of temporary visa holders and undocumented immigrants, who they claim 'lack the legal capacity to form a domicile'.

  • The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the case this week (April 1, 2026).

The players

Donald Trump

The former president who issued the executive order to redefine birthright citizenship.

Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

The conservative editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, which has expressed skepticism about Trump's legal case.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“When a longtime legal doctrine is incorrect, the Justices shouldn't shy away from fixing it merely because of age. Yet other times there's a reason the orthodoxy became the orthodoxy, and the case about birthright citizenship, Trump v. Barbara, might be one of those.”

— Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

“The Trump Administration argues ... that birthright citizenship covers only people 'completely subject' to U.S. 'political jurisdiction,' meaning those 'who owe 'direct and immediate allegiance' to the Nation and may claim its protection.' Its reading excludes babies born to temporary visa holders, as well as illegal migrants, who 'lack the legal capacity to form a domicile.'”

— Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

“The U.S. has a strong record of assimilating newcomers, from Asians in San Francisco to Irish in New York to Cubans in Miami, and birthright citizenship has been part of that story. At the same time, illegal immigration has become a serious problem, as the American left refuses to enforce the law.”

— Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

What’s next

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case by the end of its current term in June 2026.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing debate over the scope of birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment, with significant implications for immigration policy and the rights of millions of U.S. residents. The Supreme Court's decision will be closely watched, as it could upend a long-standing legal doctrine.