The Brief

This week, as the Supreme Court takes up the issue of birthright citizenship, the legacy of Wong Kim Ark will be front and center.

More than a century ago, the Chinese American man from California successfully defended his right to birthright citizenship before the Supreme Court — a victory that’s been foundational to the country’s modern-day understanding of who is American.

Now Wong’s landmark case is being cited in the flurry of briefs filed against President Donald Trump’s executive order to deny U.S. citizenship to babies born to undocumented immigrants and lawful permanent residents.

That policy has been put on pause — for now. After Trump introduced the order on his first day in office, three federal judges issued nationwide injunctions pending litigation. But the Trump administration wants the Supreme Court to reject the injunctions when it hears oral arguments focused on their national scope on Thursday.

Wong Kim Ark.

(

Creative commons

)

Should the executive order take effect, ramifications for children could be dire. Legal experts say they could face deportation and lose access to education and healthcare benefits.

In the countdown to the hearing, Wong’s case has been invoked by lawyers, immigrants’ advocates and his own descendants.

Norman Wong, who’s related to Wong through his father, said he’s worried about the children of immigrants.

“Are they going to be stateless? We can't have that,” Wong said. “They're not my children, but in a sense, we should embrace them and think of them as our children, as Americans."

The 14th Amendment

Birthright citizenship became the law of the land after the Civil War. Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868, overturning the Dred Scott decision, which said enslaved and free people of African descent were not U.S. citizens.

Under the amended Constitution, all people born or naturalized in the U.S. were guaranteed citizenship.

Several years after the 14th Amendment was adopted, sometime in the early 1870s, Wong Kim Ark was born to Chinese parents in San Francisco’s Chinatown. They lived above the family grocery during a time of growing animosity and violence toward the Chinese.

Norman Wong stands outside Wong Kim Ark's childhood home in San Francisco's Chinatown.

(

Grace Li

)

“It’s the age-old immigration story of our nation,” said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia who wrote about Wong Kim Ark in her book You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers.

While Chinese immigrants were welcomed in the 1840s and 1850s during the Gold Rush in California and seen as vital in the building of the transcontinental railroad, they were scapegoated during economic downturns.

“There was the view by some that they were taking people's jobs, and also repeated constantly was that they couldn't integrate, that they were not capable of joining a democracy,” Frost said.

The backlash resulted in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 that barred most Chinese immigration for decades. But Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, and after his parents moved back to China when he was a boy, he traveled freely between the countries.

He had married a woman in China and started a family by 1895, when he returned by himself to San Francisco, where he’d been working as a cook. But this time, he was not allowed to get off the steamship.

Top U.S. government officials had been wanting to roll back birthright citizenship and wanted to use Wong as their test case, Frost said.

Wong could have returned to China, but he decided to fight back with the help of lawyers hired by a Chinese benevolent association. After four months, Wong was released on bail. Over the next three years, his lawyers took his case all the way to the Supreme Court.

The court ruled, 6-2, in favor of Wong, upholding the earlier interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

UC Irvine law professor Robert Chang said that justices had a key consideration.

“The children of many European immigrants would lose their citizenship if birthright citizenship was not recognized,” Chang said. “Even back then, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the practical consequence if they decided otherwise.”

Chang leads the UCI law school’s Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, which filed an amicus brief against Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, citing the Wong case.

Chang says the country is now at a similar crossroads as during Wong’s day.

“It does have to do with the central question of what does it mean to be an American?" Chang said. "Who do we accept as an American?"

Post-victory

Even after winning the Supreme Court case, Wong had to continue to prove he was American.

Frost said that during a stint living in El Paso, Texas, Wong was detained by immigration authorities who assumed he was an immigrant and tried to deport him.

He had to post a bond of several hundred dollars.

“It must have been extremely discouraging that he was continuing to fight for his citizenship and presumed not to be a citizen based solely on his race,” Frost said.

Wong Kim Ark is pictured in an immigration application asserting his U.S. citizenship.

(

The National Archive

)

In recent decades, Wong’s story has received more emphasis in schools. Civil rights and Asian American organizations view him as a pioneer whose legacy lives on in his own family.

Wong eventually settled in China, after living most of his life in the U.S. But Frost said that historic archives show that three of Wong’s four sons moved to the U.S. and because of birthright citizenship were admitted — albeit after much questioning — as Americans.

Norman Wong, a retired carpenter from the East Bay, said he didn’t even know his forebear’s historic contribution until about 20 years ago when reporters contacted his father, whom records indicate was Wong’s youngest son.

Since Trump’s executive order, Norman Wong has been speaking out at events around the state about Wong Kim Ark.

“I'm proud to be of his blood,” Wong said. “I really do mean that. He stood up — not just for himself, but for all of us.”

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.