SCOTUS Dockets Harris Eligibility Case

by Sharon Rondeau

(Dec. 29, 2025) — New York State resident and registered voter Montgomery Blair Sibley, who challenged the claimed “natural born Citizen” status of former Vice President Kamala Harris, reported Monday on his Substack and website that the U.S. Supreme Court has docketed his petition for a Writ of Certiorari in his long-running “eligibility” case.

The action came after Sibley appealed a dismissal from the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court.

On November 1 The Post & Email reported the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department’s affirmation of a lower court’s earlier dismissal of the matter; appealing the decision resulted in the court’s dismissal of the case as “moot” on April 10, 2025.

Sibley originally sought to disqualify Harris from the November 5, 2024 presidential ballot in New York State, arguing she does not meet the constitutional qualifications of a “natural born Citizen.”

On page 6 of his brief filed in the Supreme Court of Schuyler County, where the case began, Sibley wrote:

…the Article II, §1 “natural born Citizen” clause which only pertains to the requirement for holding the highest public office requires both parents to be U.S. Citizens at the time of birth. Thus, as a matter of law, Kamala Iyer Harris is ineligible to be President as
neither of her parents were U.S. Citizens at the time of her birth.

…Accordingly, upon the law and facts, Kamala Iyer Harris is not a “natural born Citizen” and thus is ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States.

Sibley identified Harris by her original middle name prior to her parents’ changing it to “Devi.”

The former vice president, California attorney general, U.S. Senator from California and elected district attorney was born on October 20, 1964 in Oakland, CA to an Indian-citizen mother and Jamaican-citizen father, both of whom were attending the University of California on student visas when she was born. Neither had resided in the country long enough to apply for permanent legal status or U.S. citizenship.

Some constitutional scholars argue that the Founders intended “natural born Citizen” to mean “born in the country to U.S.-citizen parents.” However, more modern interpretations of the term of art allow for variations in a person’s background, including that birth within the United States is not necessar; that only one parent be a U.S. citizen; or that, as in Harris’s case, birth in the U.S. without consideration of the parents’ status is sufficient to hold the highest office in the land and command the nation’s armed forces.

Sibley’s definition of “natural born Citizen” reads:

The phrase “natural born Citizen” is an 18th Century legal term-of-art with a definite meaning well known to the Framers of the Constitution. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the phrase “natural born Citizen” was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (The Law of Nations, Emerich de Vattel, 1758, Chapter 19, §212);

“Accordingly,” Sibley wrote upon filing the case in August of last year, “upon the law and facts, Kamala Iyer Harris is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ and thus is ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States as her parents were not U.S. Citizens at her birth.”

On Monday Sibley updated readers on his Substack:

The New York Court of Appeals finally issued on September 18, 2025, their Order denying my motion for rehearing. No surprise there. According, I have filed a Petition for Certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court which was docketed on December 22, 2025. The Petition and Appendix can be found on my website. I presented two questions to SCOTUS:

1. WHETHER, in this U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” challenge to the 2024 Democratic candidate for President of the United States, the New York Court of Appeals when finding that claim “moot” improperly ignored this Court’s “capable of repetition, yet evading review” doctrine established in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 814 (1969).
2. WHETHER, this Court will recognize this extraordinary and pressing constitutional question and promptly direct full judicial consideration by the lower courts to answer the question of who is an Article II, §1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” when to do so now will not vitiate a major party nomination for that office shortly before the next Presidential election?

An election-related case, the U.S. Supreme Court in Moore wrote, in part, “The case is not moot, as the burden which MacDougall v. Green, supra, placed on nominations for statewide offices controls future elections, and reflects a continuing federal-state controversy which needs resolution. P. 816…Appellees urged in a motion to dismiss that, since the November 5, 1968, election has been held, there is no possibility of granting any relief to appellants, and that the appeal should be dismissed. But while the 1968 election is over, the burden which MacDougall v. Green, supra, allowed to be placed on the nomination of candidates for statewide offices remains and controls future elections, as long as Illinois maintains her present system as she has done since 1935. The problem is therefore ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review,’ Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U. S. 498, 219 U. S. 515. The need for its resolution thus reflects a continuing controversy in the federal-state area, where our “one man, one vote” decisions have thrust. We turn then to the merits.”