A House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution hearing on birthright citizenship featured sharply divided legal views on whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” limits citizenship at birth to children whose parents owe exclusive allegiance to the United States, or whether the clause’s plain text grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.

Chairman Roy convened the hearing and said the committee would examine the original public meaning of the jurisdiction clause. Ranking Member Scanlon disputed that approach, saying the clause’s plain text and longstanding precedent support birthright citizenship.

The panel of legal witnesses split along clear lines. Charles Cooper, chairman and founding partner of Cooper & Kirk PLLC, argued that the jurisdiction clause requires “complete” political allegiance and therefore excludes children born to parents who lack a permanent, lawful domicile in the United States. Cooper pointed to the post–Civil War enactments and early case law as evidence that the clause was intended to mirror the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and to exclude children of foreign sovereigns and those owing allegiance elsewhere.

Trent McCotter, partner at Boyden Gray PLLC, made a related historical argument, saying the clause invoked a doctrine of allegiance and pointing to contemporaneous debate showing the provision was intended to bar persons “subject to any foreign power.” He told the committee that children of diplomats and members of occupying forces were the well‑recognized exceptions because those persons owed allegiance elsewhere, not merely because of immunity from U.S. law.

Matt O’Brien, director of investigations at the Immigration Reform Law Institute and a former immigration judge, told lawmakers that United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and later opinions do not directly resolve whether children born to parents who are in the country unlawfully receive citizenship at birth. “Neither Wong Kim Ark nor Plyler had anything to do with whether the children of illegal aliens become U.S. citizens at birth,” O’Brien said, and he urged the panel to treat the Supreme Court precedents as limited to parents who had established lawful, permanent residence.

Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, disputed those readings. Frost argued the text, drafting history, and more than a century of judicial practice support a broad rule granting citizenship to persons born in the United States, with only narrow, historically recognized exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats. Frost warned that an executive order attempting to narrow the clause’s reach would be unconstitutional and would impose substantial practical burdens on hospitals, states and parents. She also noted that several federal judges have enjoined a recent executive order that sought to limit birthright citizenship, and said the courts have described that order as inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment and long‑standing precedent.

Members from both parties pressed witnesses on policy consequences. Some members raised concerns about “birth tourism,” international surrogacy and national security risks allegedly tied to foreign‑sponsored births; witnesses offered differing views about the frequency and legal effect of those practices. Other members warned that narrowing birthright citizenship would create a hereditary or caste‑like system and impose large administrative burdens on families and health care providers.

No formal legislative action or votes occurred at the hearing. Committee members were given five legislative days to submit written questions and the hearing record will include written witness statements.

The committee is likely to use the testimony as background for further hearings and written submissions as litigation over the executive order continues in federal courts.