Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require a Judge to be a natural born citizen of the United States.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 15, 2026
Bottom line
This resolution seeks to amend the Constitution to restrict federal judicial appointments and tenure exclusively to natural-born U.S. citizens, potentially removing current judges who do not meet this criterion.
What it actually does
This joint resolution proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would mandate all federal judges, including those on the Supreme Court and inferior courts, be natural-born citizens of the United States. Furthermore, it stipulates that any sitting judge who is not a natural-born citizen at the time of the amendment's ratification would be removed from office two years after such ratification.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that requiring natural-born citizenship for judges, similar to the presidency, ensures undivided loyalty and a deep understanding of American foundational principles, which is crucial for interpreting the Constitution. They may contend that judicial appointments are positions of immense power and influence, necessitating the highest standard of allegiance and a lifelong connection to the nation's legal and cultural fabric. Some might also argue it aligns with a more traditional interpretation of national sovereignty.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this amendment is discriminatory and unnecessary, as the current requirement of U.S. citizenship (which can be naturalized) is sufficient to ensure loyalty and qualification. They argue it would arbitrarily exclude highly qualified legal professionals who immigrated to the U.S. and became citizens, thereby limiting the pool of talent available for the judiciary and potentially removing experienced judges. Critics may also view it as an attack on the diversity of the judiciary and a departure from the principle of equal opportunity for all citizens.
The bill text is exceptionally short and straightforward, allowing for a quick understanding of its core proposal. However, the implications are significant and warrant deeper consideration.
Article--
Natural-Born Citizen Requirement for Federal Judges
This provision establishes a new constitutional requirement that only individuals who are natural-born citizens of the United States can serve as judges in federal courts, including the Supreme Court and all lower federal courts. It also includes a retroactive clause, mandating that any judge currently serving who is not a natural-born citizen would be removed from their position two years after the amendment is officially ratified by the states.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision strengthens national security and ensures that those who interpret the nation's laws have an unquestionable allegiance to the United States from birth. They believe that a natural-born citizen status provides a unique perspective and commitment essential for the judiciary, mirroring the requirement for the President. The retroactive clause ensures immediate alignment with the new constitutional principle.
Critics contend
Opponents argue that this provision is discriminatory and undermines the principle of equal opportunity for naturalized citizens, who are fully committed to the U.S. and have demonstrated their loyalty. They contend that it would unnecessarily restrict the talent pool for federal judges, potentially removing highly qualified and experienced individuals from the bench based solely on their place of birth, rather than their legal acumen or character. The retroactive removal clause is particularly criticized as disruptive and unfair.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the perceived need for absolute loyalty from birth in judicial roles against the principles of equal opportunity and meritocracy for all citizens, regardless of their place of birth. It also weighs the stability of the judiciary against a desire for stricter eligibility criteria.