Supreme Court Will Not Consider Birthright Citizenship Case

The American Somoans seeking citizenship hoped the court would overturn earlier rulings based on racist old case law.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider a case concerning birthright citizenship for American Samoans, who are born on US soil but denied US citizenship.

Five Americans from the island territory had sued the federal government, arguing that the lack of citizenship violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” But the lower courts twice ruled against the American Samoan plaintiffs, relying heavily on a set of cases from the early 20th century which espouse outdated ideas about imperialism and white supremacy to argue that some provisions of the Constitution do not apply in outlying US territories. To the surprise of some scholars, the Obama administration in court briefings offered a full-throated endorsement of these so-called Insular Cases and argued that their application be extended to explicitly prohibit birthright citizenship to American Samoans.

The case’s troubling expansion of the Insular Cases, which many scholars believe should be marginalized or even overturned because of their racist origins, caught the attention of the country’s top lawyers, many of whom filed friend-of-the-court briefs asking the justices to take the American Samoans’ case. Theodore Olson, the former solicitor general, was representing the American Samoans. But their entreaties didn’t persuade the Supreme Court. The justices likely didn’t see this issue as pressing in comparison to other issues before the court. The timing of the case might have also doomed its chances: After the February death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the court has granted review to fewer cases in general, eschewing all but the most pressing ones.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend