In my junior year AP Language class, we spent hours deepening our understanding of text through rigorous analysis. I grew to love taking the time to truly sit with a passage rather than rushing through it. Authors spend an immense amount of time articulating their thoughts and weighing the purpose of every syllable much like we did for our UC application essays. When you have a strict word limit, every word must serve a purpose. There is no room for filler.
Today, the case Trump v. Barbara challenges the 14th Amendment, specifically the interpretation of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This raises the question: what does “jurisdiction” actually mean, and more importantly, how does the Court define it? Historically, this phrase was intended to guarantee birthright citizenship for formerly enslaved people and their children. It was a cornerstone of the Reconstruction Amendments, designed to end the legacy of slavery and ensure equal protection for all.
“All 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
However, a close reading of the 14th Amendment reveals a larger scope: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States… are citizens.” This does not apply solely to the formerly enslaved, but to all who reside within our borders. Listening to the oral arguments, I found General D. John Sauer’s position lacked strength. Basing an argument on Roman law to overturn a 150-year-old interpretation of the 14th Amendment feels like a disregard for the U.S. Constitution as the supreme “Law of the Land.” To challenge this is as fundamental as challenging the Second Amendment. Gun rights are complex because of how much value we place on the original text.
This brings us to a question of governance: is it right for the Executive Branch to change the law? Is it their job, or the Supreme Court’s, to interpret the Constitution as time evolves?
Who truly has the right to interpret and make law? Regardless of the outcome, this will be a landmark case. As we listen to the news, I urge everyone to practice mindfulness. The headlines can be heavy, and it is important to care for ourselves and our loved ones while we wait for the Court’s analysis of these few, powerful words.
Language is tricky. A single word can mean different things to different people, much like a poem yields different meanings based on a reader’s life experiences. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the coup de grâce when he noted, “well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.” While the world changes, laws cannot simply fluctuate. Certain precedents are established for the well-being of all people. We should not step backward. We must evolve, but we must not compromise the supreme power of the land unless it actively harms the population. The Constitution is the poem we once analyzed in AP Lang, but now, the analysis is in the hands of the Justices. I hope they decide that the purpose of this language is to serve all citizens, not just the privileged few.