Justice Amy Coney Barrett cut straight to it: “But why is it closed? … The language doesn’t say it’s closed.”
That moment in Trump v. Barbara’s oral arguments — drop the mic.
Cecillia Wang, arguing for the challengers, hammered the phrase “closed set” at least a dozen times. She meant the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause locks exceptions — think kids of diplomats, tribal members back then, invading armies — forever in 1868 amber. No updates allowed, no matter how borders shift or threats morph. But here’s the thing: that’s not how originalism works. Not anymore.
The author, a Second Amendment litigator moonlighting on SCOTUSblog, nailed it. They’ve seen courts breathe life into the Founders’ words, applying them to AR-15s and ghost guns that Thomas Jefferson never dreamed of. Why treat citizenship different?
Second Amendment’s Playbook: Principles, Not Fossils
Take Heller, 2008. Scalia shreds the notion that only muskets count as “arms.” Semiautomatics? Covered. “Bordering on the frivolous,” he calls the freeze-it-in-time argument.
Bruen doubles down in 2022. Stage one: Does the text cover it? Modern “arms” definition wins. Stage two: History’s principles — not exact replicas — justify regs today. New York wants handgun carry bans? Nope. Colonial laws zapping ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons don’t block today’s common-use pistols.
“even if these colonial laws prohibited the carrying of handguns because they were considered ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ in the 1690s,” the court reasoned, “they provide no justification for laws restricting the public carry of weapons that are unquestionably in common use today.”
That’s Bruen talking. Principles evolve with context. Handguns weren’t ‘common’ in 1690s colonies? Tough. They are now.
Wang’s “closed set” dodges this. She insists 1868 exceptions — ambassadors’ spawn, tribal Indians (pre-assimilation), enemy invaders — exhaust the list. No room for, say, mass illegal migration or anchor babies in a post-9/11 world. Justices pushed back hard. Kavanaugh name-drops Second Amendment originalism explicitly. Why?
Because the Constitution isn’t a relic. It’s architecture for perpetuity.
Why Wang’s ‘Closed Set’ Feels Like 1990s Originalism
Remember pre-Heller? Courts twisted the Second Amendment into a collective militia right, ignoring “the people.” Originalism was selective — public meaning? Meh.
Post-Heller, shift. Text-first, history analogical. Not “what happened then,” but “what principle governs now?” Guns banned if ‘dangerous and unusual’ — a 19th-century gloss, sure, but applied to machine guns (out) vs. handguns (in).
Apply to citizenship: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” Exceptions implied via common law — full allegiance matters. Diplomats? No jurisdiction. Invaders? Ditto. Tribes? Sovereign-ish.
But mass birth tourism? Cartel mules birthing ‘citizens’? Changed circumstances scream for principle-update: true jurisdiction means parental allegiance, not just soil.
Wang freezes it. Critics — Trump admin here — say no. Original public meaning lets principles roam.
Short para: Originalism matured.
Is Birthright Citizenship Headed for a Bruen-Style Overhaul?
Picture it. Challengers win. Court says: Text covers birth on U.S. soil — check. But jurisdiction? Historical principles exclude non-allegiant parents. Modern hordes crossing illegally? Like semiauto rifles: covered unless dangerous/unusual analogue.
Unique angle: This echoes tech’s regulatory creep. Remember Section 230? Meant for 1996 dial-up; now shields AI deepfakes. Courts strain original meaning or evolve principles? Same fight. If SCOTUS flexes here, expect ripple to digital rights — free speech online, AI ‘persons’?
Barrett probed: Language silent on closure. Gorsuch likely smirks — he’s the originalist purist. Roberts? Swing on federalism.
But pushback’s real. Wang cites United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898): Ratifies broad birthright. Yet Ark involved legal residents’ kid, not illegal crossers. Nuance matters.
And tribes? Once excepted, now citizens via statute. Exceptions ain’t eternal — Congress tweaked. Why can’t executive enforce jurisdiction principles?
Sprawling thought: Trump’s order targeted illegals’ kids — not citizens, just non-jurisdictional births. Like banning M-16s: dangerous, unusual. Principles hold.
The Hidden Architecture Shift in Originalism
Deep-dive time. Originalism isn’t static dictionary. Public meaning — 1868 lawyer’s understanding — includes dynamic tools. “Arms” scales with tech; “jurisdiction” with sovereignty threats.
Historical parallel: Dredge up Naturalization Act of 1790. Limited citizenship to ‘free white’ births. Evolved via 14th. Exceptions flexed before.
Bold prediction: If Trump v. Barbara adopts this, birthright narrows. 300k annual ‘birth tourists’ evaporate. Bigger: Originalism goes kinetic — applying to AI governance, where ‘personhood’ clauses face robot ‘births.’
Corporate spin? Challers’ PR paints Trump as citizenship-killer. Nah — just jurisdiction enforcer. Hype debunked.
One sentence: Stakes? National identity.
Why Does This Matter Beyond Borders?
Litigators take note. Second Amendment wins teach: Don’t freeze history. Analogize boldly.
For devs — wait, legal tech angle — AI parsing SCOTUS? Train on Bruen, not amber.
But core: Reader, you’re smart. See the shift? Constitution lives.
🧬 Related Insights
- Read more: EU Member States’ Crushing Load: 88 AI Act Tasks That Could Fracture Enforcement
- Read more: Georgetown Law Ditches Gala for Classroom Happy Hour: Students’ Big Moment Gutted
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Trump v. Barbara about?
It’s a Supreme Court case challenging executive limits on birthright citizenship for kids of illegal immigrants, testing if 14th Amendment exceptions evolve.
Does originalism allow changes to birthright citizenship?
Yes — like Second Amendment cases, courts apply 1868 principles to modern threats, not lock them in time.
Will SCOTUS end birthright citizenship?
Unlikely fully, but could narrow it for non-jurisdictional births, echoing gun rights expansions.
