Norman Wong, a 76-year-old retired carpenter from the San Francisco area, travelled to Washington and stood among demonstrators outside the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices heard arguments in a case that directly challenges a long-standing constitutional interpretation of birthright citizenship.
For Wong the matter is personal. He is the great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark, the Chinese American cook whose 1898 Supreme Court victory established that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on persons born on U.S. soil, including those born to parents who were foreign nationals. Wong said after the arguments that the justices should reaffirm that 128-year-old precedent and rule against President Donald Trump's effort to limit birthright citizenship.
"I hope America gets this thing right," the retired carpenter told reporters after attending the day’s proceedings.
The historical circumstances at the center of the precedent were recounted by Wong and are central to the legal history in question. When Wong Kim Ark returned from a trip to his parents' homeland of China in 1895, customs officials in San Francisco declared him a non-citizen and attempted to bar his re-entry. Although he had been born in San Francisco's Chinatown, officials argued that because his parents were Chinese nationals he too should be treated as a foreign national and could be excluded under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The Supreme Court ultimately disagreed with the government’s position.
In the current dispute, the administration's move at issue is an executive order signed last year instructing federal agencies not to recognize as citizens children born in the United States when neither parent is an American citizen or a legal permanent resident - commonly referred to as a green card holder. Wong said the court should "not reinvent our rights" and should preserve "the way birthright citizenship stood for 128 years of precedents."
Outside the court, amid those defending birthright citizenship, Wong described the day as "a special day for me." He said he drew strength from seeing others gathered to oppose changes to the established rule. "I see these people and I feel like I definitely don’t stand alone, that if I can help empower them, great. Because in the end, it’s going to take America as a whole to stand up and to make this country right, to keep this ship balanced," he said.
President Trump attended the arguments, becoming the first sitting president to do so, though he did not remain for the entire session. Wong expressed the view that the president's presence was intended to put pressure on the justices. "I think he was there to apply pressure to the judges for their decision," Wong said. He added that the ruling should be driven by constitutional considerations rather than by "fear - fear of retribution, fear of the president."
During oral arguments, justices posed questions that observers characterized as signaling skepticism toward the administration's directive. Following the hearing, the Republican president posted on his Truth Social platform, calling the proceedings a "Kangaroo Court!!!"
The case has drawn demonstrators and heightened public attention to the question of how birthright citizenship will be applied in the United States. Wong’s visit and remarks tied the present-day litigation directly to the 1898 decision that affirmed citizenship by birth under the 14th Amendment for a U.S.-born child of foreign parents, a ruling that remains central to the debate now before the justices.
Key points
- The Supreme Court heard arguments about an executive order directing federal agencies not to recognize as citizens children born in the U.S. to parents who are neither citizens nor legal permanent residents.
- Norman Wong, great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark, attended and urged the justices to preserve the 128-year-old precedent established by his ancestor's 1898 case.
- Demonstrators gathered outside the court and questions from the justices indicated skepticism toward the administration’s position; President Trump attended the arguments but left before the end and publicly criticized the proceedings.
Risks and uncertainties
- Uncertainty about the Supreme Court's final ruling on the executive order - the outcome could alter a decades-old constitutional interpretation.
- Political pressure surrounding the case, including the president’s attendance and subsequent public commentary, introduces uncertainty about the environment in which the justices made their decision.
- Public reaction and demonstrations outside the court reflect social and political uncertainty tied to the case, which could affect public discourse and administrative responses.