An Overview of Birthright Citizenship as a Structural Foundation of Family Law 

Madeline Ferraro*

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause states that “[a]ll 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.”¹ On January 20th, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”² Through the order, President Trump made the claim that the Fourteenth Amendment has never been construed as extending citizenship to everyone born in the US.³ However, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that nearly all individuals born on US soil are citizens regardless of parental nationality, firmly grounding the jus soli principle in constitutional doctrine.⁴ 

While debates over birthright citizenship frequently unfold in the context of immigration policy, the doctrine also grounds the area of family law, specifically when discussing custody issues. Citizenship at birth creates a stable legal identity for children, which underscores foundational family law processes such as parentage determination, jurisdiction in custody disputes, child support enforcement, and access to public benefits. Restricting birthright citizenship, therefore, would reverberate across these areas, creating doctrinal and administrative disruption. 

Citizenship at Birth and Legal Identity 

Birth certificates, citizenship status, and legal identity are integral to family law proceedings. Courts rely on official documentation to establish parentage, determine standing in custody disputes, and enforce support obligations.⁵ In Troxel v. Granville, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that parents possess a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care and custody of their children.⁶ The parent-child relationship presupposes a clear legal identity for the child.⁷ 

Birthright citizenship ensures that children born in the US have a recognized legal status at the outset, reducing uncertainty about their legal personhood and documenting their existence within the legal system.⁸ Citizenship and birth registration are fundamental to legal identity and social inclusion; lack of such identity often correlates with marginalization in legal adjudication and administrative systems.⁹ 

Custody Jurisdiction and Interstate Uniformity 

Family law disputes frequently span state or national boundaries. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), adopted in all but one state,¹⁰ allocates jurisdiction based on a child’s “home state,” which refers to the state where a child lived with a parent or acting parent for at least six consecutive months leading up to the commencement of a custody proceeding.¹¹ Stable citizenship status that can be pinpointed by identifying the home state simplifies interstate enforcement of custody orders and streamlines recognition across jurisdictions.¹²

Child Support Enforcement and Administrative Systems 

Child support enforcement relies on cooperative federalism, which is a governmental model in which the state and national governments have overlapping functions that often work together.¹³ Under the Social Security Act, states receive federal funds to administer child support programs.¹⁴ Because states administer child support programs, these systems presuppose a stable legal identity for children and custodial parents to operate. 

In Turner v. Rogers, the Supreme Court addressed due process in civil contempt proceedings for failure to pay child support.¹⁵ Turner illustrates one of the procedural frameworks that intersects with administrative enforcement systems, which is wage withholding.¹⁶ Other procedural frameworks, such as interstate cooperation in both divorce and custody cases, are the basis on which major family case law centers.¹⁷ An erosion of birthright citizenship could strain these systems by introducing classes of children with unclear legal status, affecting federal tracking and enforcement mechanisms. 

Access to Public Benefits and Equal Protection 

Family law also overlaps with statutory benefit regimes, including healthcare, education, and tax credits tied to dependent children, and there are constitutional protections for children regardless of parental status.¹⁸ In Plyler v. Doe, the Court held that states could not deny public education to undocumented children,¹⁹ emphasizing that children should not be penalized for parental immigration status.²⁰ 

Additionally, most state and federally funded public benefit programs such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP), cash assistance, Medicaid, and housing support, assume qualified citizenship and often state residency.²¹ Birthright citizenship thus protects children born in the US from the threat of being denied public assistance at the outset. 

Parentage, Documentation, and Constitutional Constraints 

Parentage law increasingly incorporates genetic testing, assisted reproduction, and surrogacy arrangements, which have made parentage determinations more complex.²² Courts rely on statutory parentage frameworks, often operationalized through birth certificates, to identify legal parents. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry,²³ and Pavan v. Smith compelled states to equally apply marital parentage presumptions to same-sex spouses, including in birth certificate listings.²⁴ These cases illustrate how citizenship, documentation, and family law intertwine. 

Historical citizenship cases such as Perkins v. Elg²⁵ and Mandoli v. Acheson,²⁶ reinforce the principle that citizenship, once conferred, endures even across generations and residence abroad, further stabilizing legal identity foundational to family law. These doctrinal anchors demonstrate consistency over time but also highlight how deeply citizenship intersects with familial legal status. 

Accordingly, birthright citizenship is not merely an immigration doctrine but a structural element of family law’s legal infrastructure. Restricting it would implicate multiple interlocking systems that currently presuppose citizenship clarity at birth, generating widespread ramifications for children’s legal status and family law procedural coherence. 

*Madeline Ferraro, J.D. Candidate, University of St. Thomas School of Law, Class of 2027 (Associate Editor). 

1. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. ↩︎
2. Exec. Order No. 14160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (Jan. 20, 2025).  ↩︎
3. Id. ↩︎
4. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693–94 (1898). ↩︎
5. MN Department of Youth and Family Services, Establishing Parentage (Mar. 3, 2026, at 20:12 CT), https://dcyf.mn.gov/establishing-parentage-0 [https://perma.cc/MZB3-8VPE]. ↩︎
6. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65–66 (2000). ↩︎
7. See id.at 66. ↩︎
8. See generally Melissa Stewart, Birthright Citizenship, Denaturalization, and the Specter of Statelessness, 73 UCLA L. Rev. Discourse 170 (2026) (discussing legal vulnerability for stateless persons under shifting birthright policies). ↩︎
9. See id. at 176–77. ↩︎
10. Joseph W. Booth, Applying the UCCJEA in Family Law, A.B.A. (May 10, 2021), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/family_law/resources/family-advocate/archive/applying-uccjea-family-law/ [https://perma.cc/L25E-WXWU].  ↩︎
11. Unif. Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act § 201, cmt. 1 (Unif. L. Comm’n 1997). ↩︎
12. See id. at §§ 110–11; § 206. ↩︎
13. Mary Hallock Morris, Cooperative Federalism, Ctr. for Study  Federalism (2006), https://federalism.org/encyclopedia/no-topic/cooperative-federalism/ [https://perma.cc/N3CS-HHXS]. ↩︎
14. Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 651–669b (2018). ↩︎
15. Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431, 435–36 (2011). ↩︎
16. Id. at 444. ↩︎
17. See generally In re Myrland, 248 P.3d 290 (Mont. 2010) (discussing UCCJEA guidelines in determining a child’s home state); May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 (1953). ↩︎
18. See, e.g., State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer, 847 P.2d 1273 (Kan. 1993) (holding that a biological father has a child support obligation even if the child resulted from the father being statutorily raped); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 230 (1982) (holding that undocumented children are entitled to public education). ↩︎
19. Plyler, 457 U.S. at 230. ↩︎
20. Id. at 202–03. ↩︎
21. Minn. Dep’t of Human Services, Minnesota State Food Benefits, https://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/idcplg?IdcService=GET_DYNAMIC_C ONVERSION&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&dDocName=cm_00290703# [https://perma.cc/YYE7-4A9H]; Minn. Dep’t of Human Services, State Residence, https://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/idcplg?IdcService=GET_DYNAMIC_CONVERSION&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&dDocName=CM_001106 [https://perma.cc/2YKH-D8U9]; Tanya Broder, Ben D’Avanzo, Sarah Krieger & Matthew Lopas, Overview of Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs, Nat’l Immigr. L. Ctr. (Jan. 1, 2026), https://www.nilc.org/resources/overview-immeligfedprograms/ [https://perma.cc/M7TJ-GDXS]. ↩︎
22. Understanding Legal Parentage in IVF, Surrogacy Law Ctr. (Mar. 12, 2026 at 09:12 CT), https://surrogacy-lawyer.com/understanding-legal-parentage-in-ivf/ [https://perma.cc/9SVK-66VA]. ↩︎
23. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). ↩︎
24. Pavan v. Smith, 582 U.S. 563 (2017). ↩︎
25. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). ↩︎
26. Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133 (1952). ↩︎