City Attorney issues statement on birthright citizenship following SCOTUS oral argument

San Francisco, CA (April 1, 2026) — San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu issued a statement today after the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the birthright citizenship case Trump v. Barbara. Birthright citizenship is the longstanding legal principle that people born in the United States are citizens. This foundational right was enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment and affirmed in an 1898 Supreme Court case about Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese American born in San Francisco.

“Birthright citizenship is as clear‑cut a legal principle as they come, and its story is deeply rooted in San Francisco’s history,” said San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, the first Asian American City Attorney of San Francisco. “The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship 128 years ago in a case brought by a man named Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to immigrant parents. As a birthright citizen, I know my own place in this country would not be possible without Wong Kim Ark’s courage and the legacy of immigrant communities across our country. They fought for our constitutional rights over a century ago, and we will continue that fight to ensure future generations continue to benefit from these rights. We look forward to the Court’s decision.”

Case Background
President Trump issued an executive order on January 20, 2025, to end birthright citizenship, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Section 1401 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and over a century of legal precedent.

To stop the President’s unlawful action, which would harm hundreds of thousands of American children and their families, San Francisco and a coalition of states sued the Federal Administration in the District of Massachusetts to block the executive order and prevent any actions to implement it. In that case, New Jersey v. Trump, the jurisdictions requested immediate relief to prevent the President’s Order from taking effect. Federal District Court Judge Leo Sorokin granted the Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction order in February 2025, which prevented the birthright citizenship order from taking effect nationwide.

The Trump Administration eventually filed an emergency petition in that case asking the U.S. Supreme Court decide the procedural issue of whether federal district court judges can issue universal injunctions to prohibit or require behavior nationwide. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal district court judges cannot issue nationwide preliminary injunction orders unless necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court then ordered the District Court to reconsider whether the nationwide injunction in the birthright citizenship case is necessary.

In July 2025, the District Court affirmed that a nationwide injunction was necessary and later, the First Circuit affirmed that decision, recognizing the issue was not a difficult one, “which may explain why it has been more than a century since a branch of our government has made as concerted an effort as the Executive Branch now makes to deny Americans their birthright.”

In June 2025, after CASA, a coalition of civil right organizations representing a nationwide class of children born on U.S. soil filed a separate lawsuit challenging the President’s illegal executive order. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case, Trump v. Barbara, to determine whether the President’s Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment. San Francisco joined a coalition of states in filing an amicus brief in support of the nationwide class.

Birthright Citizenship
Birthright citizenship in the United States dates back centuries. Although the Supreme Court’s notorious decision in Dred Scott denied birthright citizenship to the descendants of slaves, the post-Civil War United States adopted the Fourteenth Amendment to protect citizenship for all children born in this country.

In 1895, Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese American born in San Francisco on Sacramento Street to immigrant parents, was traveling back from China to his home in San Francisco. Officials at the Port of San Francisco denied him re-entry to the United States on the grounds that he was not a citizen and subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prevented Chinese nationals from entering the Unites States. With the support of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, Wong Kim Ark challenged this decision. In 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-2 in favor of Wong Kim Ark, finding that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically made him a U.S. citizen and the government could not deny him entry into his home country.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that birthright citizenship does not depend on the immigration status of the baby’s parents. If the Executive Order stands, it will mean—for the first time since the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868—thousands of babies born each year in San Francisco and across the country, who otherwise would be citizens, will no longer enjoy the privileges and benefits of citizenship.

The President’s Order would strip these children of their citizenship and their most basic rights. It would force them to live under the threat of deportation. They would lose eligibility for a wide range of federal services and programs. It would prevent them from obtaining a Social Security number, working lawfully, obtaining a passport, voting in elections, serving on juries, and running for certain offices.

The President’s Order would also significantly harm state and local governments. State and local jurisdictions would lose federal funding for programs such as Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and foster care and adoption assistance, all of which depend in part on the immigration status of residents. Cities and states would also incur substantial costs to modify the operation and administration of their benefits programs.

The case before the U.S. Supreme Court today is Trump v. Barbara, Case No. 25-365. The Court is expected to issue an opinion this summer.