In arguments referenced by Donald Trump’s administration in the Birthright Citizenship case, the spotlight is on a case that dates back to 1880. The US Supreme Court heard the arguments on Wednesday, and is expected to deliver its final verdict in June, multiple reports mentioned.
The SCOTUS heard arguments on whether automatic citizenship can be denied to babies born in the country to parents who are in the US illegally or on temporary visas.
Wednesday’s hearing stems from Trump’s signing of an executive order on the first day of his second term – which challenged the longstanding interpretation of a 14th century constitutional provision guaranteeing birthright citizenship to nearly everyone. The POTUS is of the view that the guarantee was not intended for the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary residents.
What is the 1880 case Trump admin has cited?
The story dates back to April 5, 1880, when Omaha election official Charles Wilkins refused to register John Elk to vote. He argued that as a Native American, he was not a US citizen, mentioned a report by NBC News.
Elk, believed to be from what is now the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, pushed back — saying he had cut ties with his tribe and accepted the authority of the United States. He took the matter to court, arguing that he should be considered a citizen by birth since he was born on U.S. soil.
However in 1884, the Supreme Court ruled against him in Elk v. Wilkins, holding that Native Americans born within US territory were not automatically granted citizenship.
That time, the court had described their status same as that of “the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government.”
Fast forward to Wednesday, April 1, 2026: Trump’s administration is now citing that ruling as part of its defence of his push to end automatic birthright citizenship.
What lawyers representing Trump admin said?
The argument is that the Constitution has not always guaranteed citizenship to everyone born in the US under all circumstances.
, representing the government, referenced Elk in court papers, saying the Supreme Court has “squarely rejected the premise that anyone born in U.S. territory, no matter the circumstances, is automatically a citizen so long as the federal government can regulate them.”
In a statement, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said that the case gives the Supreme Court the chance to “restore the meaning of citizenship in the United States to its original public meaning.”
What SCOTUS said?
During two hours of questioning, several justices rat Solicitor General John Sauer’s argument that the court should fundamentally reshape US laws around birthright citizenship, reported BBC.
The SCOTUS is expected to deliver its final verdict in June.
