Trump v. Barbara · ¶136
Because §1401(a) uses the same language as the Fourteenth Amendment, the statute has long been interpreted to adopt Wong Kim Ark’s general rule of birthright citizenship, subject to the exceptions identified in that case. If Congress in 1940 or 1952 wanted to create new exceptions—and thereby test Wong Kim Ark’s statement treating the four exceptions as a closed set— Congress presumably would not have repeated the precise language that this Court had interpreted in Wong Kim Ark to contain only those four exceptions. Stated more doctrinally, Congress “must be considered to have adopted also the construction given by this Court to such language, and made it a part of the enactment.” Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1, 16 (1948) (quotation marks omitted); see George v. McDonough, 596 U. S. 740, 752 (2022); Sekhar v. United States, 570 U. S. 729, 733 (2013); Director, Office of Workers’…Read in context ›
slip opinion, revised 7/01/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.