The Brief

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on whether all children born in the United States can continue to automatically receive citizenship.

The decision, not expected for months, could reshape what had been a longtime, constitutionally enshrined practice that has been challenged by the Trump administration.

Public opinion on the issue is complicated. Americans are heavily in favor of granting citizenship to children born to parents who were also born in the U.S. — or to those who immigrated to the U.S. legally. But they are split on — or much less in support of — automatic citizenship for children born to parents who immigrated illegally.

Is birthright citizenship a common policy?

Only about three dozen countries around the world, mostly in the Western Hemisphere, offer automatic birthright citizenship.

The legal term for the practice is jus solí, Latin for "right of soil." It has roots in colonialism, particularly in South America and Africa, when Western European countries needed more people for labor and to outnumber native populations in those places. Many African countries abandoned the practice after gaining independence.

Other countries in recent decades have also abolished the practice. Ireland did so in 2005 after roughly 80% of voters rejected it. The United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, India and Pakistan all also have done away with it.

Many countries offer citizenship instead via jus sanguinis, or "right of blood." In other words, through familial lineage. This month, though, Italy even further restricted who qualifies.

Can't see the video above? Watch it here.

What does the Constitution say?

In the United States, birthright citizenship became part of the Constitution in 1868 as an effort to protect recently freed slaves.

It was enacted with the passage of the 14th Amendment. Section 1 of the amendment says:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

But President Trump has taken aim at birthright citizenship, passing an executive order on Day 1 of his second term to ban it.

Aimed at immigrants who cross the border illegally, the Trump administration argues that the Constitution's clause is outdated and has been abused.

Where does the public stand?

Public opinion is nuanced on birthright citizenship and can depend on how pollsters ask the question.

When surveys ask about birthright citizenship in general, people largely say they are supportive. But that support begins to crumble when respondents are asked about the parents' legal status — with significant divisions by party, race, age and how they get their information.

A Public Religion Research Institute survey from December found two-thirds are in favor of granting citizenship "regardless of their parents' citizenship status." A large-sample poll by Civic Health and Institutions Project, or CHIP50, a survey done in conjunction with multiple universities, found 59% in favor of keeping it.

But both showed higher support than other surveys, and both mentioned in their questions that the right is found in the U.S. Constitution.

Other surveys have found less support. For example:

• An NPR/Ipsos poll last year found a slim majority (53%) against ending the practice with 28% in favor. (It asked if people supported or opposed ending the practice.)
• The Pew Research Center showed that more than 9 in 10 support birthright citizenship for those born to parents who immigrated to the U.S. legally, but — by a 50%-49% margin — were divided on giving it to those born to parents who are in the country illegally. (Pew asked if certain groups should or should not be considered U.S. citizens.)
• A YouGov poll had 51% in favor with 39% opposed. But that dropped considerably for those not in the country legally. Just 31% said they were in favor of granting citizenship to babies of people who are "undocumented," as the survey put it, and only 25% for tourists visiting the U.S. (YouGov also did not mention that birthright citizenship is in the Constitution in its questions.) 

Divides by party, race and more

Many polls fairly consistently show majorities of Democrats, Latinos, Black Americans and those who are younger are in favor of birthright citizenship, while majorities of Republicans, especially white Republicans, are against.

For example, Pew found three-quarters of Democrats in support of granting citizenship to children of those who immigrated illegally, but only a quarter of Republicans supported it.

There is a split among Republicans, though. Only 18% of white Republicans are in favor, but 55% of Republican Hispanics are in favor.

By race regardless of political party, Pew found three-quarters of Latinos and 61% of Black Americans were in favor of birthright citizenship for those whose parents immigrated illegally, but only 48% of Asian Americans and 42% of whites were.

CHIP50, similarly, found 8 in 10 Democrats support birthright citizenship "regardless of their parents' immigration status," but only 39% of Republicans in favor. (It also found a much higher percentage of Asian Americans — 63% — in favor. YouGov found only 53% of Democrats in favor when the parents are "undocumented immigrants," and an even lower 13% of Republicans supported that.)

Those under 50 were in favor of birthright citizenship if the parents "immigrated illegally" by a 58%-41% margin, according to Pew. But almost 6 in 10 of those 50 or older were against it.

There was also a divide depending on how long the respondent has been in the United States. Two-thirds of second-generation Americans in Pew's polling were in favor. But 55% of those who are third generation or higher were against it.

PRRI found a big divide by how information is consumed, too. In that survey, 80% or more of those who most trust newspapers or mainstream TV news were in support of birthright citizenship, "regardless of their parents' citizenship status."

But only 41% of those who trust Fox News support birthright citizenship, and an even lower number (29%) of those who prefer outlets that are considered even further to the right did, too.
Copyright 2026 NPR

Southern California was built on radio.

"I can still hear the jingle KFWB News 98,” wrote  Taline in Los Feliz, during a recent conversation on LAist's daily news show, AirTalk, which airs on 89.3 FM. “I grew up hearing that in my dad's minivan on the way to and from school. It has a special place in my heart.”

Back in April, broadcast company Audacy announced KNX News — one of the last-remaining all-news FM stations — was leaving the FM dial where it had simulcast on 97.1 FM since 2021. The station, which is also one of the oldest in L.A., is not budging from 1070 AM where it has been on the air for more than 100 years. The move away from FM officially happened in May to make way for a new sports talk station, which Audacy officials called an area of growth for advertisers in today’s media landscape.

The move is one in a long line of changes for radio and a reminder that before podcasts, playlists and algorithms, many Southern Californians built their days around radio broadcasts.

Radio, a daily ritual

The construction of KNX

(

Herman J. Schultheis

/

Los Angeles Public Library

)

Michael Jackson, a well-known KNX, personality

(

Los Angeles Public Library

)

Larry Mantle, now in his 41st year hosting AirTalk, remembers being a kid and dreaming of what it might be like to be behind the mic at one of these radio stations.

“ I grew up with KNX," he said. “My dream job as a kid was to be an anchor on KNX or KFWB, the two local all-news radio stations, 'cause there was nothing like hosting AirTalk that even existed at that point.”

Mantle opened up the phone lines on a recent show to hear from his fellow SoCal radio lovers about the shows they miss and the memories they have. Here's what they had to say:

A love for radio, then and now  

A pilot of KMPC's traffic alert helicopter pictured with his daughter and grandson.

(

Los Angeles Public Library

)

A 1963 picture of Valley State College (now Los Angeles Valley College) preparing to launch KVCM

(

Larry Leach

/

Los Angeles Public Library

)

“When you'd walk down Hollywood Boulevard where the station was, you could hear it playing as you went down the street,” said  Olivia in Glendale about KLAC 570 with Al Jarvis.

 Larry in Yorba Linda shouted out KBCA Jazz for its 24-hour jazz, saying “When I first moved out here in '68 from Phoenix, which had like an hour a week, it was a real wonder.”

 Mark in Glassell Park emailed that he loves KCRW’s Henry Rollins, writing, “I used to bristle at his unique DJ persona, but over time, I came to love him and his crazy eclectic playlists. I find his knowledge in history and punk rock fascinating. He's a gem and a legend."

"I'd like to give a shout-out to all the DJs working at KXLU, the college station at Loyola Marymount University, said  Jeremy in Culver City in an email. “That station's been on the air for nearly 60 years. I believe it's one of the best examples of what's possible with radio."

"KFWB and KRLA back in the day when they were rock music stations —  Dr. Demento, one of my favorite on-air personalities, also had eclectic music taste," said  Carrie in Desert Edge.

“ Dr. Demento was must listening when I was a kid in junior high school at Le Conte Junior High in Hollywood,” Mantle added. “Every Sunday night on KMET, we would make sure we were listening to Dr. Demento and his funny records.”

The question remains…

An 11-year-old winning a car in a KMPC contest in 1963.

(

Los Angeles Public Library

)

Listener support is vital to any radio station, and it’s clear KNX has many lifelong fans. AirTalk listeners highlighted their support for household KNX names over the decades like Bill Keene, Melinda Lee, Mike Roy and Jackie Olden.

As KNX makes changes, many are watching closely and thinking about the future of radio.

Listeners like Tommy in La Quinta are left wondering if the radio dial will be the same…

“I’m a hardcore listener, but I don't know about casual listeners [and] if they'll tune to AM,” he said.

After months of hand-wringing, Los Angeles and LA28 have come to a tentative agreement on how Olympics organizers will reimburse the city for its expenses for the 2028 Summer Games.

According to the deal, the private Olympic organizing committee will pay upfront for the estimated cost of services that are not eligible for federal reimbursement, like trash pick-up and traffic control. Under another proposal, the city would also be able to tap an LA28 contingency fund if it isn't fully repaid by the federal government for policing costs at Olympic venues.

The agreement is nearly nine months overdue and still needs approval by Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council.

The 2028 Olympics are intended to be privately financed, and an existing city agreement with LA28 states that the Olympics organizers, not L.A., will pay for extra costs for public services in support of the Games. But L.A. is the financial back-stop for the Olympics, meaning if LA28 goes in the red, taxpayers will pick up the bill.

Beyond that, the city services agreement presents another area where L.A. could incur additional unexpected expenses for hosting the Games. L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez warned LA28 CEO Reynold Hoover earlier this year that a bad deal could "bankrupt" the city.

Jacie Prieto Lopez, an LA28 spokesperson, and Paul Krekorian, who leads the city's office of major events, said in statements that the freshly inked agreement would help deliver a fiscally responsible Games.

"Mayor Bass’ priority is that the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games be fiscally responsible, protect taxpayers, and benefit Angelenos for decades to come. This agreement helps deliver that commitment," Krekorian said.

But the contract between the two parties doesn't fully resolve one of the biggest areas of financial risk for the city: the enormous cost of security for an event as extensive and high-profile as the summer Olympics and Paralympics.

Organizers are counting on the federal government to pay for public safety at Olympic venues that are considered part of a "national special security event." That includes costs for LAPD staffing. LA28 has not included security costs in its $7.1 billion budget — a fact that City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto criticized earlier this year.

The federal government has so far allocated $1 billion for security costs for the Olympics. Exactly where those federal funds will go has not yet been determined, and there's no guarantee they will cover all of L.A.'s policing costs.

To address this, city officials have also proposed an amendment to a 2021 agreement between the city and LA28. That amendment would establish that if L.A. is not reimbursed by the federal government for all its eligible expenses, it could dip into LA28's contingency fund of $270 million before the private organizing committee could use those funds for any legacy projects.

But that bucket of money will first be used for any costs that Olympics organizers still owe if they run out of revenue — meaning if the Olympics don't turn a profit, the city's access to that money will depend on how much is left for the taking.

Civil rights attorney Connie Rice, who has been tracking the city's negotiations with LA28, told LAist the agreement was a "PR document" not a deal. She pointed out that if the federal government does not pay up for security spending as expected, L.A. could be in trouble.

" It leaves the taxpayers with a GoFundMe strategy," she said.

The city services agreement lays the groundwork for more negotiations between LA28 and the city. Each venue will require its own agreement, to be negotiated by July 1, 2027. Venues in the city of L.A. include Dodger Stadium, the L.A. Convention Center, L.A. Memorial Coliseum and the Venice Beach Boardwalk.

The City Council's ad-hoc committee on the 2028 Games will meet Tuesday afternoon to vote on the agreement.