當地時間2025年12月5日上午，美國最高法院宣布，將在2026年春季開庭期間審理被稱為“出生公民權案”的行政命令挑戰案件。根據美國媒體的預測，此案可能在2026年6月底前作出裁決。這起案件源於美國總統川普在2025年1月20日上任當天簽署的第14160號行政命令，該命令廢除父母雙方均非美國公民或合法永久居民的在美出生兒童的公民權。

隨後，多位在美居住的外國公民及移民家庭向聯邦地方法院提起訴訟，認為特朗普的行政命令違反美國憲法第14修正案。該修正案自1868年生效，明確規定凡在美國出生或歸化，並受其管轄的人，皆為美國公民。據美國有線電視新聞網（CNN）報導，最高法院在12月5日的會議後以簡短命令確認受理此案，但尚未明確安排口頭辯論時間。美國媒體普遍預測，判決最早可能於2026年6月底公布。

此前，美國下級法院曾阻止川普的行政命令，裁定其政策違反憲法第14修正案以及相關確立出生公民權的聯邦法律。但美國司法部很快對下級法院裁決提出上訴。特朗普政府在第14160號行政命令以及向最高法院提交的上訴狀中聲稱，第14修正案的原意僅涵蓋“新獲自由奴隸及其後裔”，不包括“臨時來美的外國人或非法移民之子女”。特朗普政府認為，憲法中“受其司法管轄”應解釋為“完全政治管轄”，非法移民仍對其原籍國負有“永久效忠義務”，因此其子女不應自動成為美國公民。

對此，美國公民自由聯盟（ACLU）國家法律總監塞西莉亞·王（Cecillia Wang）表示：“沒有任何總統可以改變第14修正案，以及國會制定的其他法律賦予的美國基本公民權。我們期待在最高法院本次年度審理期內（2025年10月至2026年6月）徹底解決這一問題。”此外，《紐約時報》曾報導，現行“出生公民權”的真正落實源自一位名叫黃金德的華人爭取的案例。黃金德出生於舊金山，其父母擁有美國永久居留權，但在一次回國探親後，黃金德被禁止入境，美國移民官聲稱他並非美國公民。於是，黃金德向舊金山地方法院提起訴訟，並一路上訴至最高法院。1898年，最高法院判決黃金德勝訴。時任最高法院大法官霍勒斯·格雷（Horace Gray）在多數意見中寫道：“第14修正案確認古老而根本的屬地主義原則…凡出生於國王領土並受國王保護者，即為自然出生之臣民，此原則在美國同樣適用。”

整體而言，這起“出生公民權案”將在最高法院展開審理，涉及行政權與憲法保障的核心衝突，對美國公民權法律的解釋及未來移民政策可能產生深遠影響。

On the morning of December 5, 2025, local time, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear a challenge to an executive order, known as the “birthright citizenship case,” during its spring 2026 session. According to U.S. media reports, a ruling in the case is expected by the end of June 2026. The case originates from Executive Order No. 14160, signed by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, the day he took office. The order revoked the citizenship of children born in the United States whose parents were neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.

Following the issuance of the order, multiple plaintiffs, including foreign nationals and immigrant families residing in the U.S., filed lawsuits in federal district courts, arguing that Trump’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified in 1868, the amendment explicitly grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. According to CNN, after a meeting on December 5, the Supreme Court issued a brief order confirming that it would hear the case, though no oral argument date has been set. Media outlets have predicted that a decision could be announced as early as late June 2026.

Previously, lower U.S. courts had blocked Trump’s executive order, ruling that the policy violated both the 14th Amendment and federal law establishing birthright citizenship. The U.S. Department of Justice quickly appealed the lower court rulings. In Executive Order No. 14160 and in its appeal to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration argued that the 14th Amendment originally applied only to “newly freed slaves and their descendants,” and did not include “children of temporary foreign visitors or undocumented immigrants.” The administration asserted that the term “subject to its jurisdiction” in the citizenship clause should be interpreted as “complete political jurisdiction,” meaning that children of undocumented immigrants, who retain “permanent allegiance” to their home countries, should not automatically acquire U.S. citizenship.

In response, Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), stated, “No president can alter the 14th Amendment or the basic citizenship rights conferred by Congress. We look forward to resolving this issue fully during the Supreme Court’s annual session from October 2025 to June 2026.”

Historically, the establishment of birthright citizenship in the U.S. was secured through the case of a Chinese American named Wong Kim Ark. Wong was born in San Francisco to parents who were lawful permanent residents, but after returning to China for a visit, he was denied reentry to the U.S., with immigration officials claiming he was not a U.S. citizen. Wong filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wong. Justice Horace Gray, writing for the majority, stated, “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental principle of jus soli…that all born within the territory of the sovereign and subject to its protection are natural-born subjects; this principle applies equally in the United States.”

Overall, the “birthright citizenship case” set to be heard by the Supreme Court involves a central conflict between executive authority and constitutional protections, and its outcome may have far-reaching implications for the interpretation of U.S. citizenship law and future immigration policy.