April 1, 2026 — SCOTUS AM (Birthright Citizenship Day)

The case asks whether the president can, by executive order, restrict birthright citizenship for children born in the US to parents who are here temporarily or without legal status. The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Bryan's primer: Two pre-1985 cases frame the debate. *Elk v. Wilkins* (1884) said Native Americans born within tribal authority weren't subject to US jurisdiction for citizenship purposes — they owed allegiance to their tribe, not the US. *Wong Kim Ark* (1898) rejected the Chinese Exclusion Act's attempt to deny citizenship to children of lawful permanent residents — and in doing so, defined "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to exclude only two groups: children of diplomats and children born to invading enemy armies. The Trump administration says Wong Kim Ark was only about people "domiciled" in the US, and that the political allegiance theory from Elk means undocumented or temporarily present people aren't covered. Bryan's note: that reading wasn't in his law school casebook, and doesn't appear to have been the accepted reading before. The administration is "dancing on some dangerous ground here" with the Elk reliance — because Elk's reasoning rested on racist "plenary power" over Native Americans that Justice Gorsuch has been trying to dismantle for years. Bryan suspected Gorsuch might bite if the government pushed that angle. The congressional record from the 14th Amendment's passage showed contemporaneous awareness of exactly this situation — Congress debated whether to add limiting language for non-resident parents and chose not to. Bryan also notes: this was called the April Fool's Morning Report, but he just didn't feel like making jokes. It was that kind of day.