Home › Case law › United States v. Wong Kim Ark

United States v. Wong Kim Ark: born in the United States, a U.S. citizenUnited States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Wang Law Firm, LLC · David Wang, Managing Attorney · Attorney-reviewed · Updated October 2026

In one sentence: In 1898 the U.S. Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese nationals domiciled in the United States, was a U.S. citizen at birth; the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment follows the common-law rule of birthplace (jus soli), excluding only a handful of exceptions such as children of foreign diplomatic representatives and children of enemies during a hostile occupation. It is the foundational case for U.S. birthright citizenship, and in 2026 the Supreme Court again relied on it as its core authority in Trump v. Barbara.

Case at a glance

Item	Details
Case name	United States v. Wong Kim Ark (in Chinese-language sources often called the "Huang Jinde case," after his name in Chinese)
Court	Supreme Court of the United States
Citation	169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Argued	March 5 and 8, 1897
Decided	March 28, 1898
Vote	6–2. Justice Gray wrote the majority opinion; Chief Justice Fuller dissented, joined by Justice Harlan; Justice McKenna did not participate
Provisions involved	Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Citizenship Clause); the Chinese Exclusion Acts then in force
Subject	Birthright citizenship; the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Current status	Still good law (as of October 2026). On June 30, 2026, Trump v. Barbara again cited it and confirmed its scope
Opinion text	Justia, Cornell LII

Background: the Fourteenth Amendment and the Chinese Exclusion Acts

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1868. Section 1 opens: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." — that is, they are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside. The clause's most immediate purpose was to overturn the holding of Dred Scott (1857) that African Americans could not be citizens.

What "born in the United States" means is fairly clear; the dispute centers on the second half of the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." In Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court held that a Native American born on a tribal reservation and owing direct allegiance to the tribe was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth and so did not acquire citizenship by birth. What, then, of children born in the United States to foreign parents who, under the law of the time, could not themselves naturalize — were they "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States?

The question was especially acute for Chinese Americans. Beginning in 1882, Congress passed a series of Chinese Exclusion Acts that restricted the entry of Chinese laborers and barred Chinese persons from naturalizing. If U.S.-born children of Chinese parents were not citizens, these laws could keep them out of the country as well.

Facts

According to the agreed facts, Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese nationals who at the time had a permanent domicile in the United States and were in business in San Francisco, but were not diplomatic or official agents of the Chinese government. His parents later returned to China. In 1890 Wong Kim Ark made a short visit to China and was allowed to return to the United States the same year; in 1894 he went to China again, and when he returned to San Francisco in August 1895, customs officials refused him entry under the Chinese Exclusion Acts on the ground that he was Chinese and not a U.S. citizen.

In October 1895 the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a writ of habeas corpus in his case. The district court held that he was a U.S. citizen by birth and ordered him released. The federal government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Is a child born in the United States to foreign parents (domiciled in the United States, but not diplomats) "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth, and therefore a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment?
Can Congress's Chinese Exclusion Acts take away such a person's constitutional citizenship?

What the Court held

Majority: "subject to the jurisdiction" read in light of the common law

Justice Gray's majority opinion devoted extensive attention to English common law and early American practice. The Court reasoned that the Fourteenth Amendment must be read against the background of the common law, whose basic rule was birthplace (jus soli): a person born within the King's dominions and under the King's protection was a subject, whatever the parents' nationality. The United States carried this rule forward after independence.

The Court wrote: "The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory". Under that rule, the long-recognized exceptions were very few: children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers (diplomatic representatives), persons born on foreign public ships, children born to enemies during a hostile occupation of part of U.S. territory, and members of Native American tribes owing direct allegiance to their tribes.

The Court therefore reasoned that foreigners within the United States are subject to its laws, entitled to its protection, and bound to obey its laws. Their children born in the United States fall within none of the exceptions and are U.S. citizens at birth.

Acts of Congress cannot change constitutional citizenship

The Court also explained that the Fourteenth Amendment itself confers birthright citizenship. The Chinese Exclusion Acts could restrict the entry and naturalization of foreigners, but they could not take away citizenship acquired under the Constitution by birth in the United States. Because Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, the Chinese Exclusion Acts did not apply to him.

Dissent

Chief Justice Fuller (joined by Justice Harlan) argued that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" should be read to mean complete and exclusive allegiance to the United States, not as a carryover of the English common-law birthplace rule; a child whose parents still owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign should not automatically become a U.S. citizen at birth. This was the minority view at the time. More than a century later, those seeking to narrow birthright citizenship revived similar reasoning, and the dissents in the 2026 Barbara case made comparable arguments.

The scope of the decision: a long-debated point

It should be noted that in Wong Kim Ark the parents had a "permanent domicil and residence" in the United States, and the Court framed the question in those terms. For more than a century, therefore, some have argued that Wong Kim Ark settled only that children of foreigners domiciled in the United States are citizens, and did not directly address children whose parents are present unlawfully or only temporarily (for example, on tourist, student or work visas).

In practice, the U.S. government long recognized as citizens all persons born in the United States (apart from statutory exceptions such as children of diplomats), regardless of their parents' status, issuing birth certificates, passports and Social Security numbers. Congress also carried the constitutional language into the Nationality Act of 1940 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952; it now appears at 8 U.S.C. 1401(a). A footnote in Plyler v. Doe (1982) also stated that, for aliens residing in the United States, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between those who entered lawfully and those who entered unlawfully.

The debate came to the fore in 2025 and was ultimately answered by the Supreme Court in 2026 (see below).

What it means for applicants

Children born in the United States: Under Wong Kim Ark and the 2026 Barbara decision, a child born in the United States who does not fall within a narrow exception such as children of diplomats is a U.S. citizen at birth. Citizenship comes from the Constitution; no separate "naturalization" is needed, and a U.S. birth certificate can be used to apply for a U.S. passport.
Parents on temporary visas or without lawful status: The child's citizenship does not depend on the parents' status (made clear in Barbara in 2026). But the parents' own status does not change because the child is a citizen; a U.S. citizen child must be at least 21 to petition for a parent's green card.
Children of diplomats: If a parent is a foreign diplomat or similar official with diplomatic immunity, the child has historically fallen within an exception and may not be a U.S. citizen. A new 2026 executive order seeks to expand this category and is still in litigation.

Later developments: the 2025–2026 birthright citizenship litigation

Executive Order 14160 (January 20, 2025): Directed federal agencies to stop recognizing as citizens children born after February 19, 2025 whose mother was unlawfully or temporarily present and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or green card holder. Several federal courts promptly enjoined it as contrary to Wong Kim Ark.
Trump v. CASA (June 27, 2025): The Supreme Court did not decide whether the order was constitutional; it only limited the power of federal courts to issue "universal injunctions." Challengers then continued to block the order through nationwide class actions and other routes. See Trump v. CASA explained.
Trump v. Barbara (June 30, 2026): The Supreme Court, 6–3, upheld the injunction against Executive Order 14160. The majority opinion (by Chief Justice Roberts, for five Justices; Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment only, on the ground that the order violates a federal statute) relied on Wong Kim Ark as its core authority, held that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and are citizens at birth, and rejected the reading that Wong Kim Ark applies only to those domiciled in the United States. See Trump v. Barbara explained.
Executive Order 14418 (August 6, 2026): After Barbara, the President signed a new executive order that, where neither parent is a U.S. citizen, places in a non-recognized category children with a parent who is an employee of a foreign government or international organization or an "enemy alien," or whose parents arranged birth in the United States or U.S. surrogacy through a "commercial transaction." On September 2, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a preliminary injunction for the class already certified in that case; the Department of Justice reportedly asked in early October to lift the injunction. A separate new class action is proceeding in the District of Columbia. As of October 9, 2026, the litigation is ongoing. For the latest, see the immigration litigation tracker.

As of October 2026, Wong Kim Ark remains good law and was reaffirmed by a Supreme Court majority in Barbara. Litigation over the scope of the "exceptions" continues, however; check the latest developments.

Practical tips

After a child is born in the United States, keep the original state-issued birth certificate and apply early for the child's Social Security number (most hospitals can apply at birth registration) and U.S. passport.
If a parent is an employee of a foreign government or international organization, or the child is born in the United States through surrogacy, the rules are currently in flux; consult an attorney before applying for a passport or other identity documents.
A child's U.S. citizenship does not by itself resolve the parents' status. The parents' visa and green card options should be evaluated separately.
Whether the child also holds another country's nationality depends on that country's law; check with that country's embassy or consulate in the United States. Our firm advises only on U.S. law.

Frequently asked questions

When Wong Kim Ark was decided, could his parents naturalize as U.S. citizens?

No. The Chinese Exclusion Acts then in force barred Chinese persons from naturalizing. The Court held that even though the parents themselves could not naturalize, their U.S.-born child was a citizen under the Constitution, and no act of Congress could change that.

Did Wong Kim Ark address parents on temporary visas or present unlawfully?

In Wong Kim Ark the parents were domiciled in the United States, so the question was long debated. On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court made clear in Trump v. Barbara that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are likewise "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and are citizens at birth.

What are the exceptions to "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

The traditional exceptions listed in Wong Kim Ark are: children of foreign sovereigns or diplomatic representatives, persons born on foreign public ships, children of enemies during a hostile occupation, and members of Native American tribes owing direct allegiance to their tribes (Native Americans were later granted citizenship generally by a 1924 statute). A new 2026 executive order seeks to expand the exceptions and is still in litigation.

Does a child born in the United States need to "naturalize" or obtain a certificate of citizenship?

No. A U.S.-born citizen proves citizenship with a U.S. birth certificate and can apply directly for a U.S. passport. The certificate of citizenship (N-600) is mainly for people born outside the United States who acquired citizenship through their parents.

If our child is a U.S. citizen, can we as parents get green cards because of that?

Not right away. A U.S. citizen must be at least 21 to file a family-based petition for a parent, and the parent must also meet all requirements for admission and adjustment of status. See the guide to family-based immigration.