Stuart C. Lord: What birthright citizenship was always meant to protect

This commentary is by Dr. Stuart C. Lord, executive director of the Boulder County Democratic Party, and a leadership scholar and advocate focused on civic trust and democratic participation.

Read more Boulder Airport celebrates launch of unleaded aviation fuel

The Supreme Court reached the correct decision last month when it rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship through executive order. The court reaffirmed a constitutional principle recognized for more than 150 years: A child born on American soil is an American citizen. But the greater story is not that the court protected the Fourteenth Amendment. It is that one of the nation’s foundational constitutional promises had to be defended at all.

To understand why this decision matters, we have to begin long before Donald Trump, long before today’s immigration debates, and even before the Fourteenth Amendment itself. In 1853, Frederick Douglass stood before an audience in New York and declared, “We declare that we are and ought to be American citizens.” Douglass was not asking for a special privilege. He was demanding that America honor the principles it had proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. He understood that citizenship is more than a legal designation. It is a public affirmation of belonging and human dignity.

America answered Douglass four years later with one of the darkest decisions in its history. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court declared that Black Americans could never be citizens of the United States. Chief Justice Roger Taney’s opinion consigned millions of human beings to permanent outsiders, denying them not only constitutional protection but their place within the American family. Dred Scott remains one of the court’s greatest failures because it defined citizenship by exclusion rather than by principle.

The nation eventually rejected that injustice, but only after a Civil War that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and fundamentally reshaped the constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment was written to answer one of the greatest moral failures in American history. Its citizenship clause established that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States, ensuring that citizenship could never again depend upon race, ancestry, or the changing preferences of those in power. It transformed citizenship into a constitutional promise.

That history explains why this week’s case was never simply about immigration. Americans can and should debate immigration policy and border security. Birthright citizenship is different. It is not another immigration policy. It is a constitutional guarantee that defines what it means to be an American. The question before the court was whether a president could narrow that guarantee through executive action. The court correctly concluded that he could not.

Chief Justice John Roberts captured the significance of the decision with seven understated words: “We break no new ground today.” Those seven words reveal what the court believed it was doing. The justices were not creating a new constitutional right. They were preserving a principle that has been recognized for more than 150 years. The court was not changing the constitution. It was refusing to let a president change it by executive order.

Read more Boulder residents weigh reviving the Boulder County NAACP after a year of turmoil

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s opinion reminded the country why the Fourteenth Amendment exists in the first place. She quoted Frederick Douglass’s vision that “the glorious birthright of our common humanity will become the inheritance of all the inhabitants of this highly favored country.” Her reference was not rhetorical flourish. It reminded the nation that birthright citizenship emerged from the struggle to ensure that no American could again be told citizenship depended upon race or ancestry. Constitutional interpretation requires us to remember the history that gave those words meaning.

Justice Clarence Thomas reached a very different conclusion, arguing that the court had misunderstood the original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment. His dissent reflects a different understanding of the amendment’s history. The disagreement between the justices reaches beyond legal doctrine. It reflects competing views of history’s role in constitutional interpretation — and whether the Fourteenth Amendment can be fully understood apart from the injustice it was written to overcome.

The timing of this decision should also give us pause. As the United States marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the nation finds itself once again debating one of its most fundamental questions: Who belongs? After two and a half centuries that included a Revolution, a Civil War, Reconstruction and the civil rights movement, Americans are still defending constitutional principles many believed had long ago been settled. That reality should concern us regardless of political affiliation.

The Supreme Court did the right thing this week. Birthright citizenship endured, and so did one of the constitution’s most important promises. But the deeper lesson extends beyond one court decision or one president. It is about the responsibility each generation bears to remember why these constitutional guarantees were written in the first place. If we forget the journey from Frederick Douglass to Dred Scott, from Dred Scott to the Fourteenth Amendment, and from the Fourteenth Amendment to today, we risk treating our most fundamental rights as ordinary political questions rather than extraordinary constitutional commitments.

The Supreme Court protected birthright citizenship. The greater challenge now belongs to the American people. Will we simply celebrate the decision, or will we remember why the Fourteenth Amendment was written in the first place?

Read more 🎨 What happened to a downtown Boulder art experiment + 40 things to do