PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Fuller, Clay [R-GA-14] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.J.Res.172 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.J.Res.172 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.J.Res.172 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.J.Res.172 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-05-04 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This resolution proposes a constitutional amendment restricting when people born in the United States count as subject to U.S. jurisdiction for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. At least one parent would have to meet a listed citizenship, nationality, permanent-residence, or lawful military-service condition. Congress could pass implementing laws. The amendment would require ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures within seven years of submission for ratification.
1. For purposes of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a person may be considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only in accordance with section 2.
2. A person born in the United States may only be considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is— (1) a citizen or national of the United States; (2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien with lawful status under the immigration laws performing active service in the Armed Forces.
3. Congress shall have the power to carry out this article through appropriate legislation.
which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification
Section 1 would make section 2 the exclusive basis for considering a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a proposed constitutional rule, not an enacted statutory change.
That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
1. For purposes of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a person may be considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only in accordance with section 2.
For a person born in the United States, one way to meet the proposed parental condition would be to have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or U.S. national. The text lists nationality separately from citizenship but does not define it.
2. A person born in the United States may only be considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is— (1) a citizen or national of the United States;
Another qualifying parental category would be a noncitizen lawfully admitted to live permanently in the United States whose residence is in the United States. The proposed condition includes both permanent-resident status and U.S. residence.
2. A person born in the United States may only be considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is—
(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States;
The third qualifying parental category would be a noncitizen who has lawful immigration status and is performing active service in the Armed Forces. Both conditions would be required under this category.
2. A person born in the United States may only be considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is—
(3) an alien with lawful status under the immigration laws performing active service in the Armed Forces.
Congress would have authority to pass appropriate legislation implementing the amendment. This provision grants legislative power; it does not require Congress to pass a particular implementing law.
3. Congress shall have the power to carry out this article through appropriate legislation.
The proposal would become part of the Constitution only upon ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures within seven years after submission for ratification. The seven-year period would run from submission, not from introduction in the House.
which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 19, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on May 4, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-19T23:33:42Z. 2026-05-04: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-05-04: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-05-04. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or appropriations policy rider was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials. Member requests, earmark disclosures, committee reports, and conference materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The complete supplied introduced text contains a narrow alternative qualification within its central policy that warrants targeted-benefit scrutiny. This classification does not imply improper motives.
U.S.-born children of a parent with lawful immigration status who is performing active service in the Armed Forces could meet the proposed parental condition through a narrow military-service qualification. This route does not require that parent to meet the separate permanent-residence category, which requires lawful admission for permanent residence and U.S. residence. The qualification is part of the proposal's central jurisdiction rule; its effects under existing citizenship law cannot be established from the supplied text alone.
2. A person born in the United States may only be considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is—
(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States;
(3) an alien with lawful status under the immigration laws performing active service in the Armed Forces.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 19, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI