Looking to limit birthright citizenship, Trump turns to an 1884 Supreme Court ruling against a Native American man

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: NBC News

March 29, 2026, 5:00 AM EDT / Updated March 29, 2026, 9:15 AM EDT


WASHINGTON — In a moment that could take on new significance almost 150 years later, Omaha election official Charles Wilkins on April 5, 1880, refused to register John Elk to vote on the grounds that he was Native American, and therefore not an American citizen. Elk — believed to have been a member of what is now known as the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska — objected, saying he had severed all ties with his tribe and had willingly subjected himself to the authority of the United States.

He launched a legal challenge, arguing among other things that he was a citizen at birth because he was born within United States territory. But the Supreme Court, in an 1884 case called Elk v. Wilkins, ruled against him, saying that Native Americans born within the territory of the United States did not have birthright citizenship. They had the same status as “the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,” the court said.

President Donald Trump’s administration is now citing that case as it defends his plan to end automatic birthright citizenship, putting a new spin on the long-standing interpretation of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case on Wednesday.

Trump’s executive order, issued on the first day of his second term, seeks to limit birthright citizenship only to people with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident. The order is not in effect; lower courts put it on hold.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-native-american-rcna263223

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. Can't wait to hear the arguments before the court.

I wonder how many justices will burst out laughing?

[bluestarone]

3. With THIS court?

I'm thinking only 3 bursting out laughing and maybe 2 more that won't laugh but vote against it. (i hope) This court could be 6-3 decision or even 5-4?

[Fiendish Thingy]

8. My guess, 7-2 against. Nt

[bluestarone]

10. I know for sure

at least TWO for it. and that's a shame. TSF can 100% count on those two

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Weak sauce.

"same status as “the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government”"

Says to me if they were born overseas, they are not US citizens. Nothing remarkable there.

Mr. Wilkins it sounds like the Court argued he was not born in a state, or a territory. He was born with loyalty to his tribe. Splitting hairs. By that logic all immigrants would maintain loyalty to the country from whence they came.

[Historic NY]

4. Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 nullified Elk v Wilkins

I Congress passed this act, also known as the Snyder Act, granting full U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States, effectively nullifying the requirement for individual naturalization that was central to Elk v. Wilkins.


https://www.opb.org/article/2025/04/07/trump-administration-attempts-to-use-19th-century-native-american-case-to-overturn-birthright-citizenship/]

Trump has that fuck face Miller working on this bullshit only he would pull this out of his rectum

[BumRushDaShow]

6. Since the SCOTUS doesn't care about "stare decisis"

(unless it benefits RW loons), then 45 is gonna roll the dice.

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. But this isn't stare decicis

This is black letter constitutional law.

Overturning birthright citizenship would be rewriting the constitution, not just reinterpreting it.

[BumRushDaShow]

11. Have you forgotten

Dred Scott v. Sandford or Plessy v Ferguson and then Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka?

The SCOTUS can "interpret" or "reinterpret" any damn thing they want and who it applies to. Those of us whose families have been here for many generations, have watched it happen.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. Haven't forgotten at all

Overturning birthright citizenship would be as historic and significant as Dred or Plessy, or maybe more so, because if birthright citizenship is revoked, can the reinstitution of slavery still be off limits?

That’s why they won’t touch it.

They would be signing the death warrants for their careers- the people would demand the court be expanded to reinstate their rights and overturn all the extremist rulings of the past 20 years.

[BumRushDaShow]

13. "if birthright citizenship is revoked, can the reinstitution of slavery still be off limits?"

THAT is the problem we are facing.

No one thought they would "touch" Roe. No one thought they would touch the VRA (even with FOUR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS DEALING WITH VOTING). Next target is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It's all up to those 6 fiends.

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. All the more reason why we must only elect Dem senators willing to kill the filibuster and expand the court

BTW, Roe was an “implied” right, not black letter law like birthright citizenship- something that could be solved by 1) codifying reproductive rights in law, and 2) expanding the court to a majority who will uphold it.

[cloudbase]

5. I'll see Elk v. Wilkins,

and raise United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

[wnylib]

7. Trump would have required both parents to be

US citizens if it weren't for the fact that his mother was an immigrant and so are/were 2 of the mothers of his children.

[Renew Deal]

14. Doesn't seem relevant

This guy was born in a territory. The people Trump is looking to exclude are/would be born in the US.

[Scalded Nun]

16. What total bullshit. Another argument of convenience.

The treatment of Native Americans by the US government (and to be truthful a huge segment of its population) has been forever disgraceful. This appears to be another case of a convenience to get what they want.

The argument "the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government" cannot be used as the tribal lands have always been within the domain of the US government. You cannot have it both ways. One one hand saying their land is sovereign and on the other hand move tribes and/or take whatever land the government wants for whatever reason the government has. Many times at the behest of corporations who want that land for various (many times deceitful/nefarious) reasons.

And legally...
If those fucking, disgusting, treasonous idiots in the White house want to refer back to 1884, they need go no further than to The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Any rationale relying on the 1884 SCOTUS ruling was nullified by that Act.

They may very well be counting on Alito to pull another 400 year-old reference out of his ass to save them. Pardon the exaggeration on the 400 years.