United States v. Wong Kim Ark

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled (6–2) on March 28, 1898, that a person born in the United States to parents holding Chinese or foreign citizenship is a U.S. citizen based on the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) to the United States Constitution. Wong Kim Ark, an American-born cook of Chinese descent, was detained and threatened with deportation following an 1894 trip to visit his family in China. Although the citizenship clause holds 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,” Wong was detained on the grounds of his parents’ Chinese citizenship. He had previously entered the U.S. from China as an American citizen without issue. It was only after this trip that government officials declared that he should not have had U.S. citizenship to begin with—because of the nationality of his parents, and because the Chinese Exclusion Act barred most Chinese immigrants from naturalization. In a 6–2 decision (with one justice unable to participate), the Court ruled in favor of Wong, declaring his detention unconstitutional and affirming his U.S. citizenship by birthright.

The cook from San Francisco

Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in San Francisco. His parents were Taishanese immigrants from Guangdong, China, who worked as merchants in San Francisco’s Chinatown before moving back to China. In 1894 Wong traveled from San Francisco to Guangdong, visiting his family and returning to the United States in 1895. Upon his return to the Port of San Francisco, Wong was detained by customs collector John Wise on the grounds of his citizenship status: Supposedly, because Wong’s parents were Chinese citizens, so was Wong himself. Wise’s belief in jus sanguinis (“right of the blood”) citizenship status—nationality based on that of one’s parents—directly contradicted the jus soli (“right of the soil”) doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment, which holds that anyone born in the United States would be granted U.S. citizenship. Wong’s five-month detention prompted the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, an organization assisting Chinese Americans with legal and mutual aid, to file a petition of habeas corpus in a federal district court.

Discover the fascinating events that shaped the world, straight from our editors.

SIGN UP

By clicking “Sign Up”, you consent to the Britannica Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Wong won his initial case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge William Morrow declared, “I am of opinion that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.…His detention, therefore, is illegal. He should be discharged, and it is so ordered.” The U.S. government then appealed the case to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for the landmark decision that would reinforce the legal foundation of birthright citizenship.

Argument of the case

Attorney George Collins and Solicitor General Holmes Conrad represented the United States. They based their argument on the unspecific language of the Fourteenth Amendment, asserting that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” included not only physical jurisdiction but also political jurisdiction. They wrote,

The language of the Constitution is not that “all persons born in the United States are citizens”…nor that “all persons born within the allegiance of the United States” are citizens. Each one of these formulae has at various times been used to express the definition of citizenship by birth…but they are all radical deviations from [the Constitution] in an essential respect.

At the start of their argument Conrad and Collins made no explicit mention of any specific nationality. But later the U.S. argument shifted to a nativist stance. The attorneys described people of Chinese ancestry as “obnoxious,” opining that American citizenship should be “sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage.” They decried the possibility of Chinese-descended people becoming citizens as a “degenerate departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.”

Explore Britannica Premium!

The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.

SUBSCRIBE

Wong’s lawyers centered their counterargument on the historical context of the Fourteenth Amendment. The amendment’s objective was to secure citizenship for newly freed Black Americans following the Civil War (1861–65), but it makes no distinction between the citizenship of Black and white people on ethnic grounds. Why, then, would birthright citizenship be singled out and disputed because of one’s Chinese ancestry? On the matter of jurisdiction, the attorneys argued that being within the jurisdiction of the United States constituted being subject to American laws and duties. This explained the exclusion of Indigenous people from U.S. citizenship at the time, as Indigenous reservations had tribal sovereignty, but it did not justify Wong’s exclusion. He had been “born within the dominion, power, protection and obedience of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…and has been taxed, recognized and treated as a citizen of the United States.”

The Supreme Court issued its final decision on March 28, 1898. Six of the eight participating justices sided with Wong, declaring him a lawful American citizen. The majority opinion, delivered by Justice Horace Gray, stated in no uncertain terms the dangers of pivoting from the Fourteenth Amendment’s jus soli doctrine to jus sanguinis citizenship. While his decision was surely influenced by colorism and anti-Indigenous prejudice, Justice Gray wrote,

To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment…excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.

Gray also reaffirmed the definition of “jurisdiction thereof,” ruling that Wong was indeed born within the jurisdiction of the United States and that the idea of “jurisdiction” was meant to solely exclude Indigenous American groups considered “alien nations, distinct political communities…not part of the people of the United States.” Thus, because Wong’s circumstances of birth matched the qualifications set forth by the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he was indeed a United States jus soli citizen. Wong Kim Ark’s constitutional right to citizenship had now been enshrined, marking one of the most pivotal moments in Asian American history.

Long-term impact and contemporary challenges

Wong Kim Ark’s Supreme Court victory turned the tides of anti-Chinese immigration practices—on paper. However, Justice Gray’s majority opinion was nothing close to a panacea for American Sinophobia. The Chinese Exclusion Act was not repealed until the Magnuson Act of 1943. Until then Chinese immigration to the United States was still heavily limited, and government officials sought to weaken the Wong decision by imposing other arbitrary naturalization restrictions. For example, Yee Ching Ton, an American-born person of Chinese descent who had lived mostly in China, sought to travel back to the United States as a citizen in 1904 but was denied entry by Secretary of Commerce and Labor Victor Metcalfe. Creating reasoning that existed nowhere in the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Wong case, Metcalfe claimed that Yee was ineligible for citizenship because he had “[waited] until he is 26 years of age…before he [attempted] to claim his birthright.” Yee was subsequently deported.

Despite these challenges, Wong still represented a critical juncture for immigrants, in particular for those of Asian American descent. Approximately 175,000 Chinese immigrants were processed at Angel Island between 1910 and 1940. And because of Wong’s Supreme Court victory, American-born children helped root Chinese families in the United States. Parents were able to buy property using their children’s citizenship, allowing immigrants to invest in assets otherwise inaccessible to them. Moreover, the growth of Asian American communities in such states as New York and California led to the creation of a unique Asian American identity in the late 20th century. Wong Kim Ark also continued to protect the millions of European children who had been born in the United States to generations of immigrants during the industrialization era of the late 19th century.

The impacts of Wong have extended far from the initial era of Chinese exclusion. As of 2024 more than a quarter of American children were born to at least one foreign-born parent. For the majority of those children who were born in the United States, their citizenship was all but guaranteed by Wong Kim Ark’s 1898 legal battle.

Birthright citizenship has become a key topic in modern political debate. In 2025 U.S. Pres. Donald Trump signed an executive order, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” that excluded from citizenship children born to parents unlawfully residing in the U.S. or residing under temporary visas. The order prompted immediate pushback, resulting in the 2026 Supreme Court case Trump v. Barbara. The Court ruled that the order was unconstitutional, albeit with four justices agreeing with Trump’s reasoning that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong was cited more than 100 times in both the majority and dissenting opinions, further complicating its interpretation. Trump has since indicated that his administration will pursue efforts to have the case reheard by the Court, setting the citizenship clause and the legacy of Wong under continued scrutiny.