Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

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

Opinion

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

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.

As a sociologist who has spent 15 years researching how Latino immigrants navigate race, healthcare, and legal status in the United States, I have seen this gap between paper citizenship and lived experience up close. One consistent theme runs across my research: legal citizenship does not protect people from being profiled as not "American." In my most recent book, I argue that racialized legal status — the intersection of race, ethnicity, and documentation status — undermines immigrants' and citizens' access to healthcare even under reforms like the Massachusetts and Obamacare policies designed to expand them.

As I found in my research conducted from 2012-2019, Latinos, for instance, reported that they were prevented from getting necessary medical care because of the collision of racial discrimination in health care, law and immigration enforcement that target their communities, and legal status restrictions that shape eligibility for health insurance and driver’s licenses. Being a CINO did not spare Latino citizens from being treated as noncitizens.

This is not a new phenomenon. In 2016, as Trump's first campaign gained momentum, Charles, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Brazil, told me: "Whether I like it or not, they will see me as an immigrant. Even with my citizenship, I will never be, in the minds of Americans, a real American."

Under Trump 1.0, Cecilia, a naturalized citizen from El Salvador, told me about being assaulted on the street by a White woman who threw coffee at her and said, "You should be out of here. Go back to your country." Sebastiao, a naturalized citizen from Brazil, began carrying his passport card everywhere he went in 2019 after a White gym member demanded he show proof of his status. "Even though I am a citizen," he told me, "I don't always feel like one. We are on the defensive all the time."

In 2026, that defensiveness has deepened. ICE has detained, assaulted, deported and even killed U.S. citizens, with agents ignoring their attempts to show proof of citizenship. The Trump administration is pursuing the largest denaturalization campaign in modern history, targeting the roughly 25 million foreign-born Americans who became citizens through naturalization. The Supreme Court has effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act, impeding citizens’ constitutional right to vote and redrawing racially discriminatory voting districts, and diluting Americans’ of color political representation.

But the power of citizenship has also diminished for White Americans, too, along with others who haven’t experienced citizenship as contingent. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is dismantling healthcare and the social safety net that once made citizenship meaningful, particularly for millions of White working-class Americans. And record numbers of US citizens are leaving the country and renouncing their citizenship. These are clear signs that “being American” – at home and abroad – no longer holds the same weight.

What would make citizenship valuable again for all of us? Not only a Supreme Court ruling, though that matters. We need to reckon with the gap between the legal citizenship written in our founding documents and the lack of social, political and cultural citizenship experienced by those this nation has never fully claimed.

That means we need policies promoting social citizenship — the right to healthcare and economic security regardless of race. It requires laws advancing political citizenship – the right to vote and have political representation without targeted barriers. And we need compassion and recognition of our shared fate to ensure cultural citizenship – the right to be recognized as fully American without being asked for proof at the gym, on the street, or behind the wheel.

None of us should have to carry our passport cards to exist safely in this country. After two and a half centuries, being a CINO is not good enough. Full, multifaceted citizenship is still owed to us all.

Dr. Tiffany Joseph is Associate Professor of Sociology and International Affairs at Northeastern University and the author of Not All In: Race, Immigration, and Health Care Exclusion in the Age of Obamacare.


Read More

gavel on top of a US flag
a judge's gavel on top of a flag
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

60 Former DOJ Attorneys Oppose California Election Lawsuit

Sixty former Department of Justice attorneys from both Democratic and Republican administrations are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Justice Department's last-minute intervention in California's election. They argue that the intervention violates longstanding department policies designed to prevent election interference. The former officials cite guidelines such as Justice Manual Section 9-85.500, which advises against overt investigative or prosecutorial steps near an election, and the department's non-interference policy, which seeks to avoid actions that could affect election outcomes or integrity.

In an amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, the former officials argue that DOJ is taking the unusual step of seeking election-related relief just days before the midterm election, contrary to department policies that discourage such actions near Election Day. They say these policies aim to prevent election interference, discourage voter participation, or disrupt election administration. The brief cites United States v. Cohen, 152 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1998), where courts recognized the importance of avoiding last-minute changes to election procedures. The amici also cite Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court cautioned against altering election rules close to an election, as such changes can cause confusion and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection
The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.
Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Law Was Supposed to Be a Shield. I Found the Bars.

I used to believe that learning the law meant learning the architecture of protection.

I believed statutes existed because someone, somewhere, had anticipated injustice and decided certain lines should never be crossed. I believed due process meant power could not simply declare itself correct. I believed whistleblower protections, grievance procedures, public-records laws, administrative review and courts formed a structure designed to restrain institutional misconduct.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Christa Pike

Christa Pike in an undated photo.

(Tennessee Department of Correction/ZUMA Press/TNS)

How death penalty opponents share the blame for botched executions

“Botched” is a perfectly fine word for golf, cooking, or home repair. It seems inadequate for the taking of a life, even the life of Christa Pike, a heinous murderer.

In 1996, a jury found Pike guilty of the torture and murder of her Jobs Corps classmate, Colleen Slemmer. Pike was sentenced to death. In the 30 years since, her case has gone through at least seven major rounds of appeal and judicial review, including four petitions to the Supreme Court. All were rejected. This doesn’t even include the many more attempts to reopen or reverse her sentence that went nowhere. She is guilty, lawfully and rightly convicted.

Keep ReadingShow less