U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief Filed by Biazzo Law Addresses Birthright Citizenship and Structural Limits on Executive Power
Updated: Jul 23
Charlotte, North Carolina – February 26, 2026 — Biazzo Law, PLLC, a national constitutional and U.S. Supreme Court litigation firm, announces that Founder Corey J. Biazzo has filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court of the United States in Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365.
Need amicus or constitutional appellate counsel? Biazzo Law handles Supreme Court briefing, federal appeals, and constitutional litigation strategy. Call/Text (703) 297-5777.
The case presents a significant constitutional question involving the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and the structural limits imposed by Articles II, III, and V of the United States Constitution.
The brief urges the Court to reaffirm United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and to hold unconstitutional an Executive Order that seeks to condition birthright citizenship on parental immigration status.
The Constitutional Question Before the Court
At issue is whether the Executive Branch may reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause to impose a domicile-based limitation on birthright citizenship.
For more than 125 years, Wong Kim Ark has been understood to constitutionalize a territorial rule of citizenship under the principle of jus soli — citizenship by birth within sovereign territory — subject only to narrow historical exceptions tied to sovereign immunity.
In his filing, Mr. Biazzo argues that:
“The holding of Wong Kim Ark was territorial. It did not condition citizenship on parental lawful permanent residence. If the Constitution imposed a domicile-based limitation, the Court would have said so.”
The brief explains that the recognized historical exceptions involved children of foreign diplomats, enemy occupiers, and others not subject to U.S. sovereign jurisdiction — not immigration classifications.
Separation of Powers and the Role of the Judiciary
Beyond birthright citizenship, the amicus brief addresses a foundational structural issue:
Does executive disagreement with Supreme Court precedent justify constitutional reinterpretation?
The filing argues that it does not.
Article II requires the President to faithfully execute the laws. Article III vests the judicial power in the courts. Article V establishes the exclusive mechanism for formal constitutional amendment.
The brief contends that constitutional reinterpretation must arise from principled judicial reasoning — not executive nonconformity with settled precedent.
It further emphasizes:
Long-standing constitutional precedent demands a “special justification” before reconsideration
Citizenship rules define national membership and generate profound reliance interests
Structural constitutional stability protects individual liberty
Stare Decisis and Constitutional Stability
The filing urges reaffirmation of Wong Kim Ark under modern stare decisis doctrine, citing:
Over a century of reliance
Integration into federal statutory law (including 8 U.S.C. § 1401)
Doctrinal consistency within Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence
Clear administrability of the territorial rule
The brief also notes that redefining citizenship through executive initiative risks blurring the distinction between constitutional interpretation and constitutional revision — a distinction central to Article V’s supermajoritarian amendment framework.
Access the Filed U.S. Supreme Court Brief
The official filed version of the amicus curiae brief is available on the United States Supreme Court’s public docket:
👉 Read the Brief of Corey J. Biazzo as Amicus Curiae (PDF)https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/399391/20260226143931545_Brief%20Amicus%20Curiae%20Corey%20Biazzo%20to%20File.pdf
(Case: Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365)
About Biazzo Law, PLLC — U.S. Supreme Court Appeals Lawyer
Biazzo Law, PLLC is a civil litigation, constitutional and appellate law firm based in Charlotte, North Carolina and Miami, Florida serving clients throughout the United States. For information regarding Supreme Court litigation strategy, constitutional appeals, or amicus participation, visit:
Comments