AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS PRO SE: 14th Amendment “Birthright Citizenship” – April 1st, 2026., US Supreme Court Oral Arguments
No. 25-365
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
BARBARA, et al.,
Respondents.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS PRO SE; AND AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS OF THEODORE “TED” HAYES, JR. REGARDING THE “CONSTITUTIONAL GENIUS” OF THE 1866 ACT
THEODORE “TED” HAYES, JR.
Amicus Curiae, Pro Se
20 19th Avenue, #3 Venice, California 90291
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| Section Page | |
| Table of Authorities……………………………………………………………..…… 3 | |
| Interest of Amicus Curiae…………………………………………………………… 4 | |
| Summary of Argument…………………………………………..…..……………… 5 | |
| Argument……………………………………………………………..………..……… 6 | |
| I. Reconstruction Context of the Citizenship Clause…………………….……… 6 | |
| II. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 Defined the Citizenship Class………………. 8 | |
| III. President Andrew Johnson’s Veto Message Clarifies Congressional Intent…………………………………………..…………10 |
|
|
IV. The Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionalized the 1866 Statute………11 |
|
| V. Constitutional Interpretation Cannot Be Based Solely on Custom……….12 | |
| Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….……….13
Certificate of Compliance………………………………………………….………..14 Proof of Service……………………………………………………………………..15 |
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV …………………………………………………………………… 7
Federal Statutes
Civil Rights Act of 1866 14 Stat. 27 ………………………………………………………………….. 9
Freedmen’s Bureau Act (1866) …………………………………………………………………………. 9
Historical Documents
President Andrew Johnson Veto Message – Civil Rights Act (1866) …………………10
Congressional Globe 39th Congress, Reconstruction Debates …………………………….. 8
Cases
Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) …………………………………………. 9
Historical Sources Reconstruction Era Legislative
Debates on Citizenship and Civil Rights ……………………………………………………… 8
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
This brief is submitted in support of either party.
Amicus Ted Hayes is a civic activist and independent researcher who has spent decades examining the historical and legal foundations of Reconstruction legislation in the United States.
Amicus submits this brief to assist the Court by presenting historical evidence regarding the legislative context in which the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment were adopted.
Specifically, these brief highlights primary historical materials, including President Andrew Johnson’s veto message of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which illuminate how Congress and the Executive Branch understood the scope of citizenship during Reconstruction.
Amicus believes that these historical materials may assist the Court in evaluating the original legislative framework underlying the Fourteenth Amendment.
No counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other than the amicus curiae made any monetary contribution to its preparation or submission.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment must be understood within the historical context of Reconstruction legislation enacted immediately after the Civil War.
Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to resolve the legal status of persons who had been held in chattel slavery prior to emancipation.
That statute declared that persons born in the United States and not subject to foreign powers were citizens of the United States.
President Andrew Johnson vetoed the legislation, but his veto message provides an important historical explanation of the statute’s scope and purpose.
Although Congress overrode the veto, Johnson’s message remains a significant document reflecting contemporary understanding of the law being enacted.
The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted shortly thereafter and constitutionalized the principle established in the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Accordingly, the citizenship clause should be interpreted within the legislative framework established during Reconstruction.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
ARGUMENT
- Reconstruction Context of the Citizenship Clause
The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted during Reconstruction in response to the legal and constitutional consequences of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery.
Prior to the Civil War, the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford held that persons of African descent could not be citizens of the United States.
Following the Civil War, Congress enacted legislation to overturn this doctrine and to secure the civil rights of the newly emancipated population.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was the first major statute adopted for this purpose.
The statute declared that persons born in the United States and not subject to foreign powers were citizens.
Congress then moved to constitutionalize this principle through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Thus, the citizenship clause cannot be separated from the Reconstruction statutes that preceded it.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Historical Sources Reconstruction Era Legislative Debates on Citizenship and Civil Rights
The legislative debates surrounding Reconstruction demonstrate that Congress sought to establish a clear legal status for persons who had previously been denied citizenship under the system of chattel slavery.
The central purpose of Reconstruction legislation was to secure civil rights and national citizenship for the newly emancipated population.
The Fourteenth Amendment must therefore be interpreted within this historical framework.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 Defined the Citizenship Class
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared:
“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power… are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”
This statute was enacted primarily to ensure the citizenship of persons emancipated from slavery.
It represented Congress’s effort to establish a clear national standard of citizenship following the Civil War.
The statute also directly repudiated the reasoning of Dred Scott.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
The Fourteenth Amendment subsequently incorporated this statutory principle into the Constitution.
Congressional Debate Evidence
During debate on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Senator Lyman Trumbull explained the purpose of the citizenship provision.
Trumbull stated that the bill was intended to secure national citizenship for persons born in the United States who were not subject to a foreign government and who had previously been denied citizenship under the doctrine announced in Dred Scott v. Sandford.
Trumbull explained:
“What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’?
Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. (1866).
By constitutionalizing the principles of the 1866 statute, the Fourteenth Amendment ensured that citizenship could not be denied by future legislation or state law.
The amendment, therefore, reflects the legislative purpose of Reconstruction.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
III. President Andrew Johnson’s Veto Message Clarifies Congressional Intent
President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Although Congress overrode the veto, Johnson’s message remains an important historical record of how the legislation was understood at the time.
Johnson described the Act as granting citizenship to a defined class of persons born in the United States.
His explanation confirms that Congress was addressing the legal status of persons whose condition had been transformed by emancipation.
The veto message, therefore, provides historical insight into the Reconstruction debate over citizenship.
The veto message, when read alongside the debates of the Thirty-Ninth Congress, helps illuminate the legislative context in which the citizenship clause later emerged.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionalized the 1866 Statute
Following the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment to ensure that the Act’s principles would be permanently embedded in the Constitution.
The citizenship clause mirrors the language and framework of the 1866 legislation.
Thus, the amendment can be understood as a constitutional extension of the Reconstruction statutes.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Constitutional Interpretation Cannot Be Based Solely on Custom
Modern interpretations of the citizenship clause sometimes rely heavily on historical practices or assumptions that developed long after Reconstruction.
However, constitutional interpretation must remain anchored to the legislative history and statutory framework that existed at the time the amendment was adopted.
The Reconstruction record provides essential guidance for interpreting the citizenship clause.
CONCLUSION
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment were enacted within the historical context of Reconstruction.
The legislative debates and historical documents from that era provide important insight into the meaning and purpose of the citizenship clause.
For these reasons, the Court should interpret the Fourteenth Amendment with careful attention to the Reconstruction statutes and historical materials that shaped its adoption.
Respectfully submitted,
Ted Hayes
Amicus Curiae, Pro Se
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
- This brief complies with the word-count limitation of Supreme Court Rule 33.1 because it contains approximately 1,046 words.
- This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Rule 33.1(b) because it has been prepared in 12-point Century Schoolbook font.
Theodore “Ted” Hayes, Jr.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Theodore “Ted” Hayes, Jr., hereby certify that on this 16th day of March, 2026, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion and Short-Form Amicus Curiae Brief by placing it in the U.S. Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed to:
- Solicitor General of the United States, 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20530.
Counsel for Petitioner, D. John Sauer, Solicitor General of the United States
- Counsel for Respondent, Cody Hirt Wofsy, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Immigrants’ Rights Project
- I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Theodore “Ted” Hayes, Jr. Executed at Los Angeles, CA.