Encuentre la versión en español aquí.
The Supreme Court has heard oral arguments regarding the case about birthright citizenship, and while their decision will have an impact on the entire country, students at Cal Poly are worried about what it could mean for their families and their experience attending a predominantly White institution.
On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Trump v. Barbara, the case challenging Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which sought to bring an end to birthright citizenship.
Up until the executive order, birthright citizenship was largely defined as being granted to anyone born in the U.S., but Trump’s executive order changed this. It did so by interpreting the 14th Amendment to mean that children born in the U.S. with two parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the country would not be considered birthright citizens.
The Trump administration’s biggest reasoning for this interpretation is based on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” included within the first clause of the 14th Amendment, which states that “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.”
“They’ve sort of argued that because undocumented immigrants, or immigrants without permanent legal status, are not subject to the laws of the United States in the same ways as naturalized people or citizens, that therefore somehow that doesn’t apply,” explained Jared Van Ramshorst, an assistant professor at Cal Poly and political geographer specializing in borders, immigration, and Latine studies.
Van Ramshorst pointed out that undocumented immigrants are subject to both civil and criminal law in the U.S., which makes the Trump administration’s interpretation of the phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” senseless.
He also explained that there are years of history supporting the original interpretation of the first clause of the 14th Amendment.
Beginning with U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, which set the precedent that the first clause of the 14th Amendment was to be interpreted as meaning anyone born in the U.S. was a citizen regardless of the citizenship status of their parents.
Then, in 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act was passed, further reinforcing and codifying this interpretation of the 14th Amendment into law.
With all this history and precedent behind the idea of birthright citizenship, it can be hard to see why the Trump administration would challenge the interpretation to begin with.
Van Ramshorst believes that even challenging the idea of birthright citizenship is an effective way of “adjusting the dial in terms of who belongs here and who doesn’t belong here” which exacerbates the much larger conversation about “anti-immigrant sentiment, racialization, exclusion, and making people feel like they are either included or excluded.”
Belonging
The idea of who does and doesn’t belong is a big issue for Hispanic students at Cal Poly, who already feel like they don’t fit in at the university.
Lizett Acosta Mendoza, a third year political science major, said she felt like Cal Poly, as a campus and an institution, doesn’t acknowledge the larger issue at hand, making her feel isolated.
“When you’re striving to be an HSI and then you have a case like this where, your HSI population is at jeopardy and is at risk and you won’t even make a statement of just, like, ‘hey, we’re not gonna comply with ICE… It’s very frustrating,” said Mendoza.
In addition, Cal Poly’s implementation of Flock cameras makes her feel like she’s “putting money into an institution that you trusted and is now working against you.”
“It feels like, damn, everybody has it out for me,” she said.
Mendoza said that prior to the executive order, she always felt assured that she would be protected in the U.S. because she was born here, but now that feeling has changed completely.
“It was just kind of a slap in the face, not to me, but to my parents. They wanted their kids to be born here, not because they wanted to have those rights for themselves, but they wanted them for us,” Mendoza said.
Mendoza described having several questions when she found out about the Supreme Court case, ranging from whether her parents would be deported to how the decision would work in education, to if decided in favor of Trump, if it would be applied retroactively and how that would affect her status as a receiver of birthright citizenship.
She also mentioned how the decision of the case would affect other people in her life.
Mendoza’s sister is a bilingual teacher, so a large portion of her students have either crossed the border themselves or have parents who crossed and have remained without residency or citizenship. She explained that her sister’s students often move away without warning, leaving her questioning where they went or what happened to them.
She explained that her sister becomes fearful whenever one of her students abruptly moves away.
“That’s something that plays in the back of her mind. If they all of a sudden move, what was the actual reason?” said Mendoza.
Fear
Fear is an emotion that Izzy Perez Pedraza, vice president of the Black Student Union, often overcomes.
“It is insane the fear I get when I get my hotline updates where ICE is in SLO. Those days are scary,” said Pedraza.
His family fears for him as well, particularly when he travels to southern California for conferences, saying, “for the fear of ICE ignoring that I am American.”
If the Supreme Court decides with Trump, Pedraza says it would create mass fear for immigrants around creating families and having children in the U.S.
“My family already understands what it means to live with immigration-related fear and uncertainty, so seeing the government target birthright citizenship only reinforces the idea that our communities are always one election away from being attacked again,” he said.
Instead of putting their focus on deliberating on birthright citizenship, Pedraza said they should focus on fixing the naturalization process and other larger issues in the U.S.
“How about we focus on feeding our children clean water, healthy foods, or helping our homeless, affordable healthcare. There are more issues than immigrants,” he said.
Other students, like third year psychology and ethnic studies major Cassandra Cruz, hope that the Supreme Court took on this case to settle it once and for all.
“There’s no changing that birthright citizenship is part of the Constitution, and that is exactly how it’s written,” she said.
The Supreme Court is expected to release its decision on Trump v. Barbara over the summer before the start of July, according to CBS News.
If the Court decides to uphold Trump’s executive order, it would overturn over 100 years of understanding of the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.
In an email to Mustang News, university spokesperson Keegan Koberl stated that “Cal Poly recognizes the uncertainty among our community around the Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship.”
He continued saying that the university is “closely monitoring the situation, and as we await the ruling, we reiterate our ongoing commitment to providing a safe and welcoming learning community for everyone.”
Koberl directed students, faculty, and staff to make use of the variety of resources that Cal Poly offers, “from legal to mental health services.”