An Analysis of Trump v. Barbara and the 10th Amendment
PUBLISHED: March 30, 2026
PREPARED BY: Roderick Threats, Director, 9th Amendment Project (9AP)
I. Executive Summary
The current litigation in Trump v. Barbara (2026) regarding Executive Order 14160 represents the most significant constitutional crossroads since the Reconstruction Era. This paper argues that the 14th Amendment’s “Citizenship Clause” must be interpreted through the lens of Consensual Citizenship. Under a Minarchist framework, citizenship is a mutual contract between the individual and the sovereign. We assert that “jurisdiction” requires a total political allegiance that cannot be unilaterally claimed by those present in defiance of the law.
For over a century, a “territorial-only” interpretation of the 14th Amendment has dominated, but at a significant cost to State Sovereignty (10th Amendment).
- The Financial Burden: States like Florida are forced to bear the infrastructure, education, and healthcare costs for individuals whose parents have not entered the American social contract.
- The Legal Fiction: The current interpretation assumes that “subject to the jurisdiction” merely means “subject to the police power.” This paper argues that one can be subject to a nation’s laws (taxation/criminal code) without being a part of its political body (citizenship).
The 9th Amendment Project proposes a return to the “Allegiance Standard” established in Elk v. Wilkins (1884).
- The 10th Amendment Reservation: The power to define the boundaries of the political community, where not explicitly mandated by the Constitution, remains with the People through their elected representatives.
- Consensualism: Citizenship is a two-way street. The child of a foreign national, who remains a citizen of that foreign power, does not satisfy the “total and exclusive” jurisdiction required for automatic U.S. citizenship.
A government of limited powers must, by necessity, have defined boundaries of membership. To allow “jurisdiction” to be defined by mere presence is to strip the People of their right to self-determination. We urge a judicial or legislative correction that aligns the 14th Amendment with the 10th Amendment’s original intent.
V. References & Authorities
- Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
- United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (Critique of Majority Opinion)
- Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” (2025)
- The Minimalist Manifesto: A Blueprint for a Free Society (Threats, 2026)
Leave a Reply