Does the Constitution guarantee citizenship to children born in the United States of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country? This question arises from Executive Order No. 14160, which asserts that such children are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. The Court must determine if this interpretation is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The petitioner sought to uphold Executive Order No. 14160 by arguing that birthright citizenship requires a "primary allegiance" based on domicile. They contended that natural allegiance alone is insufficient for citizenship and that the "subject to the jurisdiction" language excludes those without a permanent home in the U.S. They argued that this domicile-based view is deeply rooted in American history and legal practice.

The respondents sought to invalidate the Executive Order, arguing that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). They contended that the Citizenship Clause guarantees citizenship to all persons born on American soil regardless of their parents' legal status. They asserted that the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement is satisfied by mere presence within the United States.

The Court held that children born in the U.S. to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth. The Court relied on the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It applied the common law principle of *jus soli*, or "right of the soil," citing *Calvin’s Case* and Blackstone's *Commentaries on the Laws of England*. The Court noted that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to repudiate the holding in *Dred Scott v. Sandford*. To define "subject to the jurisdiction," the Court invoked *Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon*, which describes jurisdiction as the "full and complete power of a nation within its own territories." The Court reasoned that this power is "susceptible of no limitation not imposed" by the nation itself, except for narrow exceptions like foreign ministers. It further relied on *United States v. Wong Kim Ark*, which confirmed that the Citizenship Clause is "declaratory" of the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth. The Court rejected the petitioner's domicile-based theory, finding "scant evidence" that the ratifiers intended to impose such a limitation. It observed that