Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that certain individuals are natural born citizens.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Fuller, Clay [R-GA-14]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 21, 2026
Bottom line
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to limit federal judicial appointments to natural born citizens, potentially altering the eligibility criteria for a significant branch of government.
What it actually does
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to restrict eligibility for federal judgeships. Specifically, it would require that all judges, whether of the Supreme Court or inferior federal courts, must be "natural born citizens." This amendment would take effect six months after its ratification by the states.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that requiring federal judges to be natural born citizens ensures their undivided loyalty to the United States, safeguarding the integrity and independence of the judiciary. They may assert that this aligns judicial eligibility with that of the presidency, reflecting a fundamental principle of national allegiance for high office.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this amendment is unnecessary and discriminatory, potentially excluding highly qualified legal professionals who are naturalized citizens from serving in critical judicial roles. They might argue it narrows the pool of talent, undermines the principle of equal opportunity, and could be seen as an attack on the contributions of immigrants to American society.
The bill text is extremely short and straightforward, requiring minimal time to read and understand its direct implications.
Article--
Natural Born Citizen Requirement for Federal Judges
This provision proposes a new article to the Constitution that would mandate that only individuals who are "natural born citizens" are eligible to serve as judges in any federal court, including the Supreme Court and all lower federal courts. This new requirement would become effective six months after the amendment is successfully ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures that all federal judges possess an inherent and unquestionable allegiance to the United States from birth, which is vital for maintaining the impartiality and trust in the judicial system. They believe it aligns the judiciary with the presidency in terms of citizenship requirements, emphasizing national loyalty for foundational government roles.
Critics contend
Critics argue that this provision is discriminatory and would arbitrarily exclude many highly qualified and dedicated naturalized citizens from serving as federal judges. They contend that it diminishes the value of naturalized citizenship and limits the talent pool, potentially depriving the nation of excellent legal minds based on their place of birth rather than their merit or loyalty.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for perceived absolute loyalty from birth in high office against the principles of equal opportunity and the value of contributions from naturalized citizens. It also weighs the potential for a more homogenous judiciary against the benefits of a diverse bench reflecting the nation's population.