Wong Kim Ark

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in or around 1873 to Chinese-born parents. They migrated to America when there were few restrictions on who could enter the United States.

In 1895, after a trip to visit China, Wong was denied re-entry to the U.S. under the Chinese Exclusion Act. Immigration officials claimed that he was not a citizen because his parents were Chinese nationals, and according to them, Wong could not be an American citizen.

Wong Kim Ark challenged the government’s position in court, and his case — United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) — eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, birthright citizenship has been guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The amendment addressed Dred Scott vs. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), where the Court held that an enslaved person born in the U.S. could never be a citizen.

In 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–2 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause confers citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents' background or immigration status.

Wong Kim Ark's case confirmed that birthright citizenship extended to all. This ushered in an era that reconceptualized who belonged in America. It expanded the ambit of equality – also guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment – by protecting the children of immigrants from being denied citizenship based on their heritage.

Wong Kim Ark’s case has had a lasting legal impact, not only for Asian American communities but all communities. At a time when Asian immigrants were excluded from naturalization and faced widespread discrimination, his U.S. Supreme Court victory ensured that U.S.-born children of migrants could not be denied citizenship.

Today, as debates over immigration and birthright citizenship continue, the Wong Kim Ark decision remains a crucial safeguard for AANHPI communities (whose populations are comprised of a significant percentage of immigrants) and beyond.

Executive Order 14160

In 2025, the federal government issued Executive Order 14160. Also known as "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," Executive Order 14160 bars the government from recognizing American citizenship for children born to mothers unlawfully present or even lawfully but temporarily present in the U.S. and if their father was not a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident. This undermines the precedent set in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that all U.S. born children are U.S. citizens regardless of the circumstances of their parents.

The Executive Order will have disproportionate effects on Asian American populations and other immigrant communities, echoing past discriminatory laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act. If enforced, the order is likely to lead to widespread legal uncertainty, family separations, and bureaucratic chaos.

Questions? Please contact our Advocacy and Policy Team at advocacy@napaba.org.

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website and in any associated attachments is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice. It is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not establish, an attorney-client relationship. This information should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other professional advice tailored to your specific circumstances and may not be used to avoid penalties under law.

NAPABA Birthright Citizenship Amicus Briefs

NAPABA has long championed the fundamental principle of birthright citizenship, a cornerstone of civil rights in the United States. In 2015, NAPABA adopted a resolution supporting the widely-held interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and rejecting efforts to undermine its guarantees. Beginning in 2025, we have defended the constitutional guarantee of citizenship in court for all individuals born on U.S. soil. Our amicus briefs seek to ensure that our members, the courts, and the public have a stronger understanding of how Asian American legal history has shaped the debates over birthright citizenship and that Asian American and Pacific Islander communities continue to retain the protections guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. These briefs reflect NAPABA’s commitment to safeguarding equal rights, preserving constitutional values, standing against efforts to erode this vital protection, and educating the public on the direct relevance of Asian American legal history in today’s most contentious policy debates.

• Ninth Circuit
• Fourth Circuit
• First Circuit
• Supreme Court of the United States

Questions? Please contact our Advocacy and Policy Team at advocacy@napaba.org.

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website and in any associated attachments is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice. It is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not establish, an attorney-client relationship. This information should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other professional advice tailored to your specific circumstances and may not be used to avoid penalties under law.

Additional Resources

Cases

NAPABA's amicus briefs on birthright citizenship, as well as the federal government’s arguments, rely on many landmark cases involving Asian American litigants that are foundational to the body of United States immigration and civil rights jurisprudence. During the restrictive and exclusionary period of the 1800s, Asian Americans brought over 7,000 habeas petitions with several, such as Wong Kim Ark’s, reaching all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. These cases are integral not only in explaining the Asian American experience, but for a full understanding of American history. These are some of the cases involving Asian American litigants that have been cited to during the course of the birthright citizenship litigation.

• People v. Hall (1854)
• Chy Lung v. Freeman (1875)
• Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan (1879)
• In re Look Tin Sing (1884)
• Tape v. Hurley (1885)
• Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
• Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889)
• Quock Ting v. United States (1891)
• Lau Ow Bew v. United States (1892)
• Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (1892)
• Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893)
• Lem Moon Sing v. United States (1895)
• United States v. Mrs. Gue Lim (1900)
• Chin Bak Kan v. United States (1902)
• Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920)
• Ozawa v. United States (1922)
• United States v. Thind (1923)
• Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS (2001)

Articles

• Birthright Citizens and Paper Sons
• “By Accident of Birth”: The Battle over Birthright Citizenship After United States v. Wong Kim Ark
• Everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. Here’s why.
• The Trump Administration’s 14th Amendment Retcon: ‘Wong Kim Ark’ Does Not Limit Birthright Citizenship

Recordings

• NAPABA Birthright Citizenship Webinar (3/26/2026) (video)
• U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments (04/01/2026) (audio only)

Additional Briefs of Note

• Amicus Brief of the Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance
• Amicus Brief of Professor Eric Muller
• Amicus Brief of Professors Jack Chin, Ericka Lee, Paul Finkelman
• Amicus Brief of the Korematsu Center
• Amicus Brief of Senator Ted Cruz et al.
• Amicus Brief of the South Asian American Justice Collaborative, et al.

Questions? Please contact our Advocacy and Policy Team at advocacy@napaba.org.

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website and in any associated attachments is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice. It is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not establish, an attorney-client relationship. This information should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other professional advice tailored to your specific circumstances and may not be used to avoid penalties under law.