Skip to content
Apply
Stories

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

People in this story

Fulcrum, June 2026

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century. But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship – access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Race has been at the core of determining citizenship eligibility since the 1790 Naturalization Act, which explicitly reserved it for “free white persons.” Though the 14th Amendment and women’s suffrage expanded legal citizenship, Supreme Court cases like Plessy v. Ferguson and United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind contracted it again for certain Americans. Consider that Native Americans — the original Americans — were not extended legal citizenship until 1924, a century ago, and even then, were denied the right to vote for decades more.

Continue reading at Fulcrum.

More Stories

GOP calls them ‘communists.’ Here’s what democratic socialists believe

08.06.2026

RFK Jr.’s Cooking Show Turns MAHA Messaging Into Lifestyle TV

08.06.2026

One Problem With Attacking the Smithsonian? Americans Like It.

08.06.26
In the News