Congress Members Submit Amicus Transient To Supreme Courtroom Supporting Trump Govt Order
Several members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order.
“U.S. Representative Chip Roy (R-TX-21) and U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO), Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Subcommittees on the Constitution, filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of President Trump’s Executive Order defending the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause,” a press release from Rep. Chip Roy’s office read.
“For decades, birthright citizenship has been misused in ways the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended. President Trump is taking the necessary steps to uphold the Constitution and restore the rule of law. I thank my friend and highly accomplished attorney Chuck Cooper for his collaboration on this amicus along with Senator Schmitt. The deep constitutional expertise and careful scholarship in this brief present the Court with a clear and historically grounded defense of the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Roy said.
“U.S. citizenship is a privilege, reserved for those with a permanent and lawful bond to the United States. But for decades, maximalist birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal aliens has betrayed both the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the intent of its drafters. It’s also threatened the sovereignty and security of our nation. President Trump is restoring the original meaning of the Constitution, and I’m glad to work with Representative Roy to present this clear and historic defense of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause before the Supreme Court,” Schmitt said.
“I signed a brief to the Supreme Court in support of Trump’s EO on birthright citizenship. Giving children of illegal aliens automatic American citizenship incentivizes unlawful immigration. To protect our national sovereignty, this practice must end,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said.
I signed a brief to the Supreme Court in support of Trump’s EO on birthright citizenship.
Giving children of illegal aliens automatic American citizenship incentivizes unlawful immigration. To protect our national sovereignty, this practice must end. pic.twitter.com/kjMSHvtFxt
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) January 28, 2026
* Images from Rep. Thomas Massie’s X post *
Roy’s press release shared text from the amicus brief:
“The history of the Fourteenth Amendment confirms that the Framers of the Citizenship Clause in the 39th Congress intended to guarantee birthright citizenship only to American-born persons whose parents permanently and lawfully reside in the United States.”
“The congressional history of the Citizenship Clause thus confirms, as renowned jurist and constitutional scholar Thomas Cooley put it, that the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof, . . . meant that full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens generally are subject, and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to some other government.’”
“‘Though commonly misunderstood, the holding in the Wong Kim Ark case is not to the contrary. Indeed, Wong Kim Ark had nothing to do with the children of illegal aliens or aliens lawfully but temporarily admitted to the country. The plaintiff in Wong Kim Ark was born and raised in California by Chinese parents who “had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence” in the United States,’ 169 U.S. at 651, and thus enjoyed a ‘more distinct and larger measure of [sovereign] protection than those who are simply passing through,” Fong Yue Ting, 149 U.S. at 734 (Brewer, J. dissenting). Upon returning from a temporary visit to China, he was denied reentry under the Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred aliens “of the Chinese race . . . from coming into the United States.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 653. The Court held that he was a natural-born United States citizen and therefore not subject to exclusion under the Act. The Court was especially careful to frame the “single question” presented, which it repeated verbatim twice in the opinion . . .’”
“Text, structure, congressional history, binding precedent, and common sense all point in the same direction. The Citizenship Clause applies only to those who have been allowed to adopt our country as their permanent and lawful home. This Court should reverse.”
#BREAKING: Chairman @Jim_Jordan, @SenTedCruz, Republicans submit a brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in support of President Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship.
Read the brief here:https://t.co/yTr7INSrl8
— House Judiciary GOP
(@JudiciaryGOP) January 28, 2026
Cleveland.com shared further:
It points out that there’s widespread agreement that children born to foreign diplomats in the United States, or invading soldiers, wouldn’t get citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, because they don’t owe total allegiance to the United States.
The legal brief argues the same interpretation should apply to those illegally present in the country, because, like ambassadors and foreign soldiers, they “do not owe total allegiance to the United States; they remain citizens of their home countries, to whom they owe at least divided allegiance and which often imposes birthright citizenship of its own on the children born to its nationals in the United States.”
The Fourteenth Amendment says: “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.” It was ratified after the Civil War to ensure that Black people whose ancestors were enslaved would receive citizenship.
Trump signed the executive order on Jan. 20, 2025, the first day of his second term. The order would deny citizenship to people born in the United States if their mother was “unlawfully present” or had “lawful but temporary” immigration status, and their father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Multiple federal judges have blocked the order from taking effect, calling it unconstitutional. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. According to SCOTUSblog, the court will likely hear oral arguments in the spring, with a decision expected by late June or early July.
Read the full amicus brief HERE.
This is a Guest Post from our friends over at 100 Percent Fed Up.
View the original article here.