Possible Split Decision in Birthright Case - Expert

WASHINGTON - EntSun -- While the media and some constitutional scholars have suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court might issue a narrow ruling in the birthright citizenship case [No. 25-36,Trump v. Barbara] which will be argued on Wednesday morning:
The Supreme Court's Birthright Citizenship Options (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/03...)
one additional possibility which has been overlooked - although suggested by a law professor with an impressive number of wins in constitutional cases - is a split decision which gives something to each side in the proceeding.

Public interest law professor John Banzhaf has published a lengthy legal analysis (http://prsync.com/george-washington-university/...) suggesting that a child born in the U.S. to an alien would be entitled to birthright citizenship only if the mother was in the country legally at the time of birth; e.g., on a student, work, tourist, or visa-waiver visa.

More on EntSun News

• The Eichelberger Performing Arts Center Announces 6 Youth Summer Camps
• Acclaimed Actress Laura Meadows as Vendetta Vette (c) in Streaming Short Trailer 2026 Announcement
• Century Fasteners Corp. Exhibiting at 2026 MRO Americas Show – April 21-23, 2026 – Booth #2257
• Digi 995 Launches Robot Head Corduroy Cap in Premium Vintage Style
• Blue Sparrow Coffee named Best Matcha in Westword's Best of Denver 2026

On the other hand, women who snuck across the border illegally - and especially if they remained in hiding "off the grid" - would not realistically be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" [of the U.S.], and therefore their children would not automatically acquire birthright citizenship.

Banzhaf points out that the Supreme Court decision most relied upon to establish birthright citizenship - United States v. Wong Kim Ark - applied only that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrants legally residing and lawfully doing business in the U.S.   Therefore it has no relevance to a woman in the U.S. illegally and hiding from authorities.

Supporters of birthright citizenship also cite language from Plyler v. Doe but it's inapplicable dicta since the decision was based upon the Equal Protection Clause (with applies to all persons regardless of citizenship) and to an entitlement to public education, not citizenship.

Banzhaf also notes language from other Supreme Court decisions which undercut arguments that birthright citizen attaches to all births, and not only when the mother is legally present in the U.S. and therefore unquestionably "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

More on EntSun News

• Ocean County College Introduces Pathways to Simplify the Student Journey and Strengthen Career Connections
• Kiko Nation Expands to Apple App Store, Achieving Full Mobile Deployment for Livestock Digital Registry Platform
• The Lawyers' Marketer Launches Claude AI Implementation Service for Law Firms
• Certified Trading Card Association and Collectors MD Launch Healthy Hobby Initiative
• Eric Bellinger Debuts "Cry In Front Of You" Live Following Tamla Motown Signing

The law professor's detailed legal analysis can be found at:
A Possible Compromise in the Birthright Citizenship Case (http://prsync.com/george-washington-university/a-possible-compromise-in-the-birthright-citizenship-case----children-become-citizens-only-if-mother-was-in-the-us-lawfully-5180031/)
Children Become Citizens Only If Mother Was in the U.S. Lawfully (http://prsync.com/george-washington-university/...)

JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School
"The Man Behind The Ban on Cigarette Commercials"
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Creator of the "Banzhaf Index"
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH),
(703) 527-8418
http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf