United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China" became "at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution."Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 653. "The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, '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.
Wong Kim Ark was the first Supreme Court case to decide on the status of children born in the United States to alien parents. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under the Chinese Exclusion Act, a law banning virtually all Chinese immigration and prohibiting Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the Citizenship Clause should be interpreted "in light of the common law". The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" acquires automatic citizenship.
The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the Citizenship Clause to grant citizenship to children born in the United States, with only a limited set of exceptions based on English common law. The Court held that being born to alien parents was not one of those exceptions. The Court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 715.
In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "[t]he parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts." A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that Wong Kim Ark held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language."Epps (2010), p. 332. Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally. Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted. In 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14160, which sought to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants and temporary residents; however, it was challenged in court and ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court on June 30, 2026, in Trump v. Barbara.
Background
Early history of United States citizenship law
Throughout the history of the United States, the dominant legal principle governing citizenship has been jus soli—the principle that birth within the territorial limits of the United States confers automatic citizenship, excluding slaves before the American Civil War.Woodworth (1896), p. 537. "[T]he commonly accepted notion in this country, both prior and subsequent to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment ... has been that birth within the United States, although of alien parents, was sufficient, of itself, to confer the right of citizenship, without any other requisite, such for instance, as the naturalization proceedings which take place with reference to aliens." Although there was no actual definition of citizenship in United States law until after the Civil War,Woodworth (1896), p. 538. "As a matter of fact, there was no definition in the constitution, or in any of the Acts of Congress, as to what constituted citizenship, until the enactment of the Civil Rights Bill in 1866, and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868." it was generally accepted that anyone born in the United States was automatically a citizen.Woodworth (1896), p. 538. "So generally accepted and acted upon has been the impression that birth in this country ipso facto confers citizenship, that there are, to-day, thousands of persons born in the United States of foreign parents, who consider themselves, and are recognized, legally, as citizens. Among these are very many voters, whose right to vote, because born here of foreign parents, has never been seriously questioned.""Authorities", 7 FAM 1119(d). "Until 1866, the citizenship status of persons born in the United States was not defined in the Constitution or in any federal statute. Under the common law rule of jus soli—the law of the soil—persons born in the United States generally acquired U.S. citizenship at birth."
The common law principle of jus soli was upheld in an 1844 New York state case, Lynch v. Clarke,Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236 (N.Y. 1844). in which a state judge held that a woman born in New York City, of alien parents temporarily sojourning there, was a U.S. citizen.Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. at 250. "Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.... I am bound to say that the general understanding ... is that birth in this country does of itself constitute citizenship.... Thus when at an election, the inquiry is made whether a person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, if he answers that he is a native of this country, it is received as conclusive that he is a citizen.... The universality of the public sentiment in this instance ... indicates the strength and depth of the common law principle, and confirms the position that the adoption of the Federal Constitution wrought no change in that principle."Woodworth (1896) p.539. "The first, and indeed the leading, case, in favor of the common-law rule in this country, is that of Lynch v. Clark, decided in 1844, by Vice-Chancellor Sandford, in the Court of Chancery of the State of New York."
African slaves were originally excluded from United States citizenship. In 1857, the United States Supreme Court held in Dred Scott v. SandfordDred Scott v. Sandford, . that slaves, former slaves, and their descendants were not eligible under the Constitution to be citizens. Additionally, Native Americans were not originally recognized as citizens, since Native American tribes were considered to be outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.
Citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
After the Civil War and the subsequent abolition of slavery, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866.An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication. 39th Cong., Sess. I, Chap. 31; 14 Stat. 27. April 9, 1866."Authorities", 7 FAM 1119(d) "Until 1866, the citizenship status of persons born in the United States was not defined in the Constitution or in any federal statute. Under the common law rule of jus soli--the law of the soil-persons born in the United States generally acquired U.S. citizenship at birth." & 7 FAM 1119(e). "This rule was made part of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Statutes at Large 27)...." One provision of the statute granted citizenship to "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed".Civil Rights Act of 1866
Concerns were raised that the citizenship guarantee in the Civil Rights Act might be repealed by a later CongressWong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 675. "The same Congress, shortly afterwards, evidently thinking it unwise, and perhaps unsafe, to leave so important a declaration of rights to depend upon an ordinary act of legislation, which might be repealed by any subsequent Congress, framed the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution...." or struck down as unconstitutional by the courts.Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 597 (February 2, 1866). "Congress has no power to make a citizen.... [only] to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Soon after the passage of the Act, Congress drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and sent it to the states for ratification (a process which was completed in 1868). Among the Fourteenth Amendment's many provisions was the Citizenship Clause, which entrenched a guarantee of citizenship in the Constitution by stating, "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."
The Citizenship Clause was proposed by Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan on May 30, 1866, as an amendment to the joint resolution from the House of Representatives which had framed the initial draft of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The heated debate on the proposed new language in the Senate focused on whether Howard's proposed language would apply more broadly than the wording of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2890 (May 30, 1866). He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons"—a comment which would later raise questions as to whether Congress had originally intended that U.S.-born children of foreign parents were to be included as citizens.