🏛️ Background Information
Before reading about the recent case, it is helpful to understand three key concepts in U.S. politics:
- The U.S. Constitution: The supreme law of the United States. No president or law can override it.
- The Amendments: Official changes or additions made to the Constitution. The 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War, deals with citizenship and equal protection.
- The Supreme Court: The highest court in the country, made up of nine justices. They decide if laws and executive actions follow the Constitution.
🔥 Warm-Up — Before You Read
Discuss these questions with a partner or write short answers.
📝 Legal & Political Vocabulary
Study these words and phrases before reading the summary.
| Word | Meaning in Context | Type |
|---|---|---|
| birthright | a particular right of possession or privilege one has from birth | Noun |
| undocumented | not having the appropriate legal documents or licenses | Adjective |
| enshrined | preserved in a form that ensures it will be protected and respected | Verb (Past Participle) |
| dissent | the expression or holding of opinions at odds with those previously or officially held | Noun / Verb |
| repudiation | rejection of a proposal or idea | Noun |
| fiat | a formal authorization or proposition; a decree | Noun |
| assuage | make an unpleasant feeling less intense | Verb |
| jurisdiction | the official power to make legal decisions and judgments | Noun |
✏️ Vocabulary Practice
Type the best word from the vocabulary list.
📖 Article Summary
The Supreme Court voted 6 to 3 to strike down an executive order by President Trump that attempted to limit birthright citizenship. The order was designed to prevent babies born to undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign residents from automatically becoming American citizens. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion, asserting that the executive order violated a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
The 14th Amendment states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens. Chief Justice Roberts argued that this language has historically guaranteed citizenship at birth, tracing the common law concept back to England and highlighting the landmark 1898 case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. He noted that citizenship guarantees are of particular importance in a "nation of immigrants."
Following the ruling, President Trump posted on social media calling the decision "too bad for our Country" and urged Congress to pass legislation ending birthright citizenship. However, since a majority of the justices ruled that this right is guaranteed by the Constitution, passing such a measure through Congress faces long-shot odds. The American Civil Liberties Union celebrated the ruling, stating that a president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.
Three conservative justices dissented. Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the 14th Amendment was originally intended as a repudiation of the Dred Scott decision to enshrine citizenship for formerly enslaved people, not for the children of temporary foreign visitors who lack bonds to the country. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. also criticized the decision, writing it confers citizenship on virtually everyone, including the children of "birth tourists."
🧩 Key Ideas / Arguments
Focus on the logical breakdown of the differing perspectives in the court case.
1. The Executive Order
Trump attempted to stop automatic citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and temporary residents like those on student or tourist visas.
2. The Constitutional Promise
The 14th Amendment from the 1860s clearly states that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens.
3. The Historical Precedent
In 1898, the court previously confirmed this birthright in the case of a child born to Chinese citizens on U.S. soil.
4. The Conservative Dissent
Justice Thomas argued the amendment was only meant to secure citizenship for formerly enslaved people who had no other homeland.
5. The Presidential Reaction
Trump suggested Congress could "easily make it up" through legislation instead of a complex Constitutional Amendment.
6. The Legal Reality
Because the Supreme Court ruled the right is Constitutional, simple legislation will likely not be enough to change it.
✏️ Concept Practice — Match the Idea
Choose the concept that best fits the description.
✅ Comprehension Check
Choose the best answer based on the article. The choices are shuffled automatically.
💬 Short Answer
Answer in your own words based on the text.
🔧 Grammar Focus A — Legal Collocations
Legal and political journalism often uses specific word pairings (collocations). Review these pairings used in the article:
- strike down: "The Supreme Court voted 6 to 3 to strike down the president’s executive order..."
- executive fiat: "A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat..."
- long-shot odds: "Any measure... would face long-shot odds."
- birth tourism: "...women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child... people he characterized as birth tourists."
| Collocation | Meaning |
|---|---|
| strike down | To declare a law or order illegal and invalid. |
| executive fiat | An arbitrary order or decree by a single leader without legislative process. |
| long-shot odds | A very small chance of succeeding. |
| birth tourism | Traveling to another country specifically to give birth so the child gets citizenship. |
✏️ Collocations Practice
Type the correct vocabulary word (strike, fiat, odds, tourism) to complete the collocation.
🔧 Grammar Focus B — The Passive Voice in Law
When discussing legal rulings or constitutional rights, where the *action* or the *law* is more important than the specific person performing it, writers frequently use the passive voice.
Structure: Object + Form of "To Be" + Past Participle
| Active Voice (Focus on the actor) | Passive Voice (Focus on the object/action) |
|---|---|
| The Constitution guarantees citizenship. | Citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution. |
| The 14th Amendment enshrined the right. | The right was enshrined in the 14th Amendment. |
| Lawyers filed the case in New Hampshire. | The case was filed in New Hampshire. |
✏️ Passive Voice Practice
Rewrite the verb in the brackets into the correct passive voice form based on the context.
✍️ Writing Task — Opinion Paragraph
Write a paragraph answering this question:
Your paragraph should include:
- your opinion clearly stated
- at least 2 reasons supporting your view
- at least 1 passive voice sentence
- at least 2 vocabulary words from Tab 2 (e.g., birthright, undocumented, assuage)
Model Paragraph
In my opinion, birthright citizenship is a fair system because it prevents the creation of a permanent underclass of stateless residents. First, if a child is born and raised in a country, they share its culture and values, regardless of whether their parents were undocumented. Second, birthright citizenship helps to integrate immigrant communities faster. While some people worry about "birth tourism," these fears can be assuaged by recognizing that most immigrants come seeking a better life. Once citizenship is granted to these children, they are able to participate fully in society. Therefore, the right to belong should be based on where someone builds their life.
💡 Discussion Questions
1. Justice Thomas argued that temporary visitors lack "similar bonds" to the country and wouldn't be called upon in time of war. Do you think emotional or patriotic bonds are necessary for citizenship?
2. The article notes that Trump urged Congress to pass a law ending birthright citizenship because a Constitutional Amendment is "long and unwieldy." Why do you think democracies make it so difficult to change their constitutions?
3. Chief Justice Roberts pointed out that America is a "nation of immigrants." Does this historical fact change how the country should approach citizenship compared to older nations in Europe or Asia?