Supreme Court Ruled 140 Years Ago That Foreign Nationals Born in U.S. Aren't Citizens

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Experts say the Supreme Court established 140 years ago that the 14th Amendment's 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' clause was intended to naturalize freed black slaves, not grant citizenship to foreign nationals born in the U.S. The court ruled in Elk v. Wilkins that an American Indian born on a reservation was not a citizen because he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Why it matters

This ruling challenges the modern interpretation of birthright citizenship and could have significant implications for immigration policy and the rights of foreign nationals born in the U.S. The debate over the original intent of the 14th Amendment continues to be a contentious political issue.

The details

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that an American Indian born on a reservation was not a U.S. citizen because he was not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, as required by the 14th Amendment. Experts say this interpretation of the clause was meant to naturalize freed black slaves, not grant citizenship to random foreigners born in the U.S.

• The Supreme Court decided Elk v. Wilkins in 1884.