John Brown disproves Trump’s birthright citizenship case.

Key Points:

• The Trump administration’s argument against birthright citizenship relies on redefining "jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment to mean "allegiance," and then excluding children of unauthorized immigrants and temporary visitors from citizenship, a stance largely rejected by Supreme Court justices.
• Solicitor General John Sauer argued that only children of parents with "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. qualify for birthright citizenship, despite this phrase not appearing in the 14th Amendment’s text.
• The administration’s theory is contradicted by historical precedent, notably the 1859 John Brown trial, where Brown was convicted of treason based on the concept of temporary allegiance to the state despite his brief and unlawful presence.
• The John Brown case, well-known to the drafters of the 14th Amendment, illustrates that temporary presence can impose allegiance, undermining the administration’s argument that unauthorized immigrants and their children lack such allegiance.
• Given the Supreme Court’s emphasis on historical context and tradition in constitutional interpretation, the precedent of temporary allegiance from the Brown trial significantly challenges the Trump administration’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship.