Washington, April 2 (NationPress) American Indian tribes have taken center stage in the ongoing US Supreme Court hearings regarding birthright citizenship, an issue President Donald Trump aims to alter as lawyers explore how foundational constitutional principles relate to contemporary immigration matters.

During the proceedings on Wednesday, Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, argued that the 14th Amendment was never intended to confer universal citizenship to all individuals born within the United States.

Sauer highlighted a longstanding exception: children born to American Indian tribes were not automatically granted citizenship at the time the Amendment was ratified.

“The offspring of tribal Indians do not fall under the rule of birthright citizenship,” Sauer stated before the justices.

This illustrates that merely being born on US soil does not guarantee citizenship; it hinges upon whether an individual is fully subject to US jurisdiction.

Several justices engaged with this argument, including Clarence Thomas, who questioned how the citizenship clause relates to historical rulings such as Dred Scott, and Samuel Alito, who examined how established constitutional principles apply to current circumstances.

Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns about whether the government’s interpretation diverges from established precedents and common law regarding jurisdiction and allegiance.

The administration contended that American Indian tribes were traditionally recognized as distinct political entities with their own sovereign status, with tribal members seen as owing loyalty to their tribal governments rather than fully to the United States.

This implies that they were not entirely under US authority like other residents.

In contrast, attorneys representing the challengers argued that this exception is unique and cannot be applied to immigrants.

“They are subject to another sovereign's jurisdiction even while they are in the United States,” the attorney told the court, labeling the tribal status as a “fiction of extraterritoriality.”

The attorney noted that this scenario does not pertain to foreign nationals, who remain entirely subject to US law while in the country.

Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether the tribal exception is linked to territorial claims or political identity, and whether it could lead to new restrictions on citizenship.

Historically, American Indian tribes were excluded from automatic citizenship, even if born within US borders, until 1924 when Congress granted citizenship to Native Americans through legislation.

The discussion underscored that the 14th Amendment was influenced by two primary issues: ensuring citizenship for freed slaves and maintaining the distinct status of tribal nations.

“I believe the main focus… really concerned not with immigrants, but with the Indian tribes,” Sauer stated.

Legal experts assert that this distinction is vital, as it indicates that early citizenship discussions were linked to sovereignty rather than immigration policy.

The case now seeks to determine if this narrow historical exception can be invoked to justify broader limitations on birthright citizenship in the modern context.

The 14th Amendment reversed the Dred Scott ruling and established a national definition of citizenship.

For over a century, that definition has been broadly interpreted under the precedent set by United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

The court's ruling could decide whether new exceptions may be created or if the original rule will remain intact.