When U.S. officials denied his citizenship, Wong Kim Ark took his fight to the Supreme Court—and won. Today, his landmark case remains central to debates over who is entitled to be an American.
In August 1895, Wong Kim Ark, a young cook, returned to San Francisco after a long journey from China. But when he tried to disembark from the S.S. Coptic, U.S. customs officials stopped him.
He was not a citizen, they claimed—despite being born in San Francisco’s Chinatown, just miles from the port where he was detained. Officials later argued that the 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, did not apply to him. Their reasoning? Wong’s parents were Chinese immigrants and thus not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Instead of accepting this decision, Wong fought back.
His case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor in 1898, affirming that the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship to nearly all children born in the U.S. That precedent has shaped American law for over a century.
Now, the Trump administration is seeking to overturn that ruling and limit birthright citizenship as part of its broader immigration crackdown.
On his first day back in office, President Trump signed an executive order declaring that children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors would no longer be considered citizens.
The order immediately sparked lawsuits from Democratic attorneys general and civil rights groups. Last week, a federal judge blocked its implementation, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.” The Justice Department has already appealed.
The administration’s legal argument is based on a reinterpretation of Wong’s case, drawing from conservative scholars like John Eastman, who previously advised efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Even with a conservative majority, it’s unclear whether the Supreme Court would take up a case challenging birthright citizenship. However, legal experts warn that the administration’s push could set the stage for a long-term challenge to the longstanding precedent.
A Fight Born from Anti-Immigrant Policies
Wong’s legal battle took place during a time of fierce anti-immigrant sentiment, particularly against Chinese laborers.
His parents were part of a wave of Chinese immigrants who arrived in the mid-1800s seeking work. Wong’s father ran a grocery store in San Francisco’s Chinatown, where his son was born in 1870.
But hostility toward Chinese immigrants grew as they became economic competitors to white workers. Racist laws and violent attacks followed. Chinese immigrants were often depicted as unassimilable, unclean, and inferior.
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was a direct result of this sentiment. It barred most Chinese immigrants from entering the U.S. and prevented them from becoming citizens.
Wong’s parents eventually returned to China, taking him with them. But, hoping for better wages, he later traveled back to the U.S.
Despite the exclusion laws, Wong was allowed to re-enter because of the 14th Amendment, which had been ratified just two years before his birth. The amendment declared that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.”
Its passage overturned the infamous Dred Scott decision, which had ruled that Black Americans could not be citizens.
To Wong and his supporters, the amendment’s broad language—including the phrase “all persons”—clearly established that he was a citizen, regardless of his parents’ nationality. Initially, immigration officials agreed. Wong re-entered the U.S. multiple times by proving he was born in San Francisco.
But eventually, officials sought to close what they saw as a loophole. They decided to make an example of Wong.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
Government lawyers seized on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to argue that Wong’s parents were still under the political authority of China. Because of this, they claimed, their son was not truly subject to U.S. jurisdiction either.
Wong’s attorneys countered by citing congressional debates over the 14th Amendment. They argued that its authors had intended birthright citizenship to apply broadly, with very few exceptions—such as children of foreign diplomats or hostile occupying forces.
They also pointed out a critical flaw in the government’s argument: If Wong lost his case, the U.S.-born children of white European immigrants could also be denied citizenship.
At the time, it was uncertain how the Supreme Court would rule. Just two years earlier, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the court had upheld racial segregation under the doctrine of “separate but equal.” The justices had also previously backed several Chinese exclusion laws.
But in 1898, the court ruled in Wong’s favor in a 6-2 decision. Justice Horace Gray, writing for the majority, affirmed that the 14th Amendment applied regardless of race, stating that citizenship was determined by “place and jurisdiction, not by color and race.”
Since then, birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of American identity, symbolizing the principle that all people born in the U.S. are equal at birth—regardless of race, religion, or their parents’ immigration status.
A Renewed Debate
Despite its long-standing acceptance, birthright citizenship is once again under attack, largely due to increasing concerns over immigration.
Trump administration lawyers argue that children of noncitizens should only receive automatic citizenship if their parents are lawfully domiciled in the U.S.—as Wong’s parents were.
They also claim that undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders remain politically tied to their home countries, meaning their U.S.-born children should not automatically become American citizens.
Some legal scholars, including Rogers M. Smith of the University of Pennsylvania, have argued that the Supreme Court never explicitly addressed the children of undocumented immigrants in Wong Kim Ark. While Smith personally supports birthright citizenship, he acknowledges that the ruling leaves room for interpretation.
Still, most legal experts believe the Supreme Court is unlikely to overturn a precedent that has stood for more than a century. Even conservative scholars, such as John Yoo of the University of California, Berkeley, have defended the broad application of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
However, there are signs that the legal landscape is shifting.
Judge James C. Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit—a potential Supreme Court nominee—has previously defended automatic citizenship. But in a recent interview, he seemed to soften his stance, echoing Trump administration arguments that birthright citizenship should not apply in cases of war or invasion.
A Battle for the Future
Some historians view the current debate as a modern parallel to the exclusionary policies of Wong’s time. Erika Lee, a Harvard history professor, argues that Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship is part of a broader effort to limit immigration.
“That is, I think, a very clear parallel between then and now,” she said.
For much of the past century, Wong Kim Ark’s case was largely forgotten, even by his own descendants. But today, his story is at the center of a national debate over what it means to be an American—and who has the right to call this country home.
After winning his landmark case, Wong continued to face scrutiny from immigration officials. Eventually, he left the U.S. and moved to China.
His legacy, however, remains deeply embedded in the fabric of American law.