Catholic bishops to Supreme Court: Abandoning birthright citizenship ‘immoral’

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to protect birthright citizenship, warning that abandoning the long-standing practice would be “immoral.”

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to prevent children from automatically receiving United States citizenship at birth if their parents entered the country illegally and were residing in the country unlawfully when the child was born.

The order faced an immediate legal challenge from parents of children denied citizenship based on the order. That lawsuit argues that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right, protected by the 14th Amendment. The case is currently before the Supreme Court.

In an amicus or “friend of the court” brief, lawyers for the bishops argued that ending birthright citizenship is not legal, based on the 14th Amendment, and lacks historical support from Western legal tradition.

They wrote that birthright citizenship is also backed by Catholic teaching, “which affirms the inherent dignity of every human person, especially the innocent child.”

“As Catholics, our faith compels us to protest laws that deny the dignity of the human person and harm innocent children, particularly when such laws resurrect the very injustices the 14th Amendment was enacted to repudiate,” the amicus brief stated.

“At its core, this case is not solely a question about citizenship status or the 14th Amendment,” it added. “It is a question of whether the law will affirm or deny the equal worth of those born within our common community — whether the law will protect the human dignity of all God’s children.”

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) joined the bishops in the amicus brief.

The U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 with the primary purpose of ensuring formerly enslaved people were recognized as citizens. The amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a broad right to birthright citizenship, based on the amendment, with very limited exceptions. However, the nation’s highest court has never directly ruled on a case in which a person was denied birthright citizenship because his or her parents were in the country unlawfully.

The bishops’ amicus brief was mostly focused on morality, highlighting their interpretation that abandoning the practice would deny the innate dignity and freedom of the person, would inflict harm on vulnerable people, and would weaken and threaten the family.

“Because every person is created in the image and likeness of God, the Church rejects the notion that some people are considered ‘others’ and do not possess intrinsic God-given human dignity,” the amicus brief stated.

“The executive order is antithetical to the import of the Church’s teachings because it deprives people whose parents were not born here, or whose mother has temporary status, of the legal rights necessary to participate in the society of their birth,” it added.

Some Catholics push back

The amicus brief prompted some sharp pushback from Catholics who questioned the bishops’ interpretation of the 14th Amendment and of Catholic social teaching.

In a post on X, Joshua Hochschild, a philosophy professor at Mount St. Mary’s University, suggested there be “another amicus brief for the citizenship case” signed by priests and scholars to reflect what he called “actual Catholic social thought on the political, moral, and legal question of citizenship.”

“[It] could easily be conspicuously bipartisan too: The brief should explain actual Catholic teaching, moral principles, the nature of political prudence, and come to the conclusion that Church teaching is compatible with a variety of interpretations and applications of the 14th Amendment,” Hochschild added.

Kevin Roberts, a Catholic and president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, posted on X that “none of this is Church teaching” but rather “just a poor argument.”

“It’s interesting how the ‘human dignity’ argument is always a one-way street: Everything for the foreigner, including lawbreakers, at the expense of the citizen,” Roberts said.

He noted that the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that political authorities “may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption.”

The catechism also states that prosperous nations have a greater obligation to accept migrants but that migrants also have an obligation to that nation’s laws and customs.

Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies and a former immigration judge, told EWTN News that he “respect[s] what [the bishops] have to say” but thinks the amicus brief is “more of a political statement than it is a moral one.”

He noted that most Catholic countries — apart from the Western Hemisphere — do not have unrestricted birthright citizenship. He added that “the Holy See doesn’t have birthright citizenship” and most European countries have moved away from it in recent years.

According to the World Population Review, only 36 countries — including the United States — have unrestricted birthright citizenship. Another 45 have birthright citizenship that is restricted, meaning that it only applies under certain conditions.

Arthur said “the government does have a good argument” but thinks the Supreme Court could rule in a variety of ways. If the ruling is favorable to the administration, he said it is more likely that the court narrows birthright citizenship than that it abandons it altogether. He said it’s also possible that the justices find that Congress, rather than the executive, has the authority to limit it.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in about a month, on April 1, in the case of Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case.