Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Showing Original Post only (View all)

BumRushDaShow

(169,637 posts)
Sun Mar 29, 2026, 05:06 PM Sunday

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

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

43 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Can't wait to hear the arguments before the court. Fiendish Thingy Sunday #1
With THIS court? bluestarone Sunday #3
My guess, 7-2 against. Nt Fiendish Thingy Sunday #8
I know for sure bluestarone Sunday #10
Wow, had not seen your response but mine was exactly the same..."With this court?" Escurumbele 16 hrs ago #32
Weak sauce. bucolic_frolic Sunday #2
Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 nullified Elk v Wilkins Historic NY Sunday #4
Since the SCOTUS doesn't care about "stare decisis" BumRushDaShow Sunday #6
But this isn't stare decicis Fiendish Thingy Sunday #9
Have you forgotten BumRushDaShow Sunday #11
Haven't forgotten at all Fiendish Thingy Sunday #12
"if birthright citizenship is revoked, can the reinstitution of slavery still be off limits?" BumRushDaShow Sunday #13
All the more reason why we must only elect Dem senators willing to kill the filibuster and expand the court Fiendish Thingy Sunday #15
Roe was focused on enforcement of the PRIVATE right for women to choose what to do with her own body BumRushDaShow 18 hrs ago #30
And that horrific ruling will continue to stand Fiendish Thingy 14 hrs ago #36
That was the hope in 2022 BumRushDaShow 13 hrs ago #37
That's because Biden wanted to wait on the report from the bipartisan commission on court reform Fiendish Thingy 11 hrs ago #42
Not exactly. Ms. Toad Sunday #17
Birthright citizenship is also a law LeftInTX Sunday #23
It is the interpretation of the constitution that is at issue. Ms. Toad Sunday #24
I disagree Fiendish Thingy Sunday #25
"If the constitution says two term limit for a president, it doesn't mean three" BumRushDaShow 15 hrs ago #33
But the Constitution doesn't say two terms for a p president. Ms. Toad 15 hrs ago #34
Two means two, not three Fiendish Thingy 14 hrs ago #35
Again, you are reducing a paragraph to a single word. Ms. Toad 12 hrs ago #38
At this time, it's probably a moot point Fiendish Thingy 11 hrs ago #43
Except that the US constitution does NOT Farmer-Rick 23 hrs ago #27
Article III of the constitution and Marbury v. Madison. Ms. Toad 12 hrs ago #39
In that Supreme Court ruling Farmer-Rick 12 hrs ago #41
I'll see Elk v. Wilkins, cloudbase Sunday #5
The funny thing is, Wong Ark was decided in 1898 NickB79 Sunday #18
Trump would have required both parents to be wnylib Sunday #7
Doesn't seem relevant Renew Deal Sunday #14
So at that time territories weren't considered "The US"? Callie1979 Sunday #20
That's the way I'm reading it Renew Deal Sunday #22
I Think They Are Talking About Indian Territories DallasNE 23 hrs ago #28
If thats the story then it would seem to have zero meaning to today's case. Callie1979 17 hrs ago #31
What total bullshit. Another argument of convenience. Scalded Nun Sunday #16
Sounds like a "3/5ths" argument; seen as lesser individuals. Callie1979 Sunday #19
This case in an interpretation that is consistent with how the provision has always been interpreted. Ms. Toad Sunday #21
I'm not buying that argument Bayard Sunday #26
Call DHS Immediately! Nasruddin 21 hrs ago #29
pedo and his henchmen should move to Tx or Fl and let the rest of us get our country back Marthe48 12 hrs ago #40
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Looking to limit birthrig...