The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today in Trump v. Barbara, the possible landmark case that could fundamentally change how America approaches birthright citizenship. The other day, a Fordham Law professor said that President Trump has some grounds in his argument, especially when it applies to temporary visitors abusing birthright citizenship.
I would argue that's a step in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was never meant to allow all-comers to come to America, have babies, and grant those children citizenship. It was designed to address an issue that arose after the Civil War about the citizenship and rights of newly-freed Black slaves, and was a direct response to Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which said that Black people could not be U.S. citizens, regardless of whether or not they were free or enslaved.
In the 158 years since the 14th Amendment was ratified, the concept of birthright citizenship has expanded to include any child born on American soil, regardless of his parents' citizenship status. All a foreign woman has to do is cross our borders before giving birth, and her child becomes an anchor baby. Now, roughly a quarter million kids are born to illegal aliens every year, and they get automatic U.S. citizenship.
🚨 TODAY: Supreme Court about to hear Trump’s birthright citizenship order.
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) April 1, 2026
Roughly 255,000 kids born here every year to illegal invaders would no longer automatically get U.S. citizenship, that’s about 6% of all births.
Time to end it. pic.twitter.com/qTYDUN5QVV
The framers of the 14th Amendment never, in their wildest dreams, intended for this system to be abused and misinterpreted as it has been.
This includes by Chinese nationals who — thanks to an Obama-era loophole — travel to the Northern Marianas Islands sans visas to give birth to children who are instantly granted U.S. citizenship. Rep. Tom Tiffany seeks to put an end to that practice, of course. I'm hoping he won't need to keep pushing that legislation.
Every single word of the Constitution — every noun, verb, adjective, phrase, clause, and punctuation mark — means something. They are deliberate and intentional to convey a specific legal meaning and purpose.
In the case of the 14th Amendment, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is key. Illegal immigrants, who are obviously not citizens, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States beyond being deported for violating our immigration laws.
But I'm not here to argue the legalities of the case. I'm here to make a simple observation: President Trump — who is right about the 14th Amendment — has already won, even if he doesn't win outright at the Supreme Court.
Why?
Because he's managed to move the goalposts on this issue, and not just a little bit. Last June, in a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court smacked down rogue judges who issued nationwide injunctions on Trump's birthright citizenship executive order, and in December, he got the Supreme Court to agree to hear the case.
That, in and of itself, is a huge step in the right direction. This Supreme Court is saying there's some legitimacy to President Trump's argument, and they're going to consider the merits of the case.
Ever since President Trump issued that executive order, the media pundit class, various so-called experts, and other critics (including some Republicans) of President Trump have said this was a settled case and that years of precedent meant President Trump was foolish for even pursuing the question.
Jonathan Turley noted that his losses at lower courts were due in part to this "established precedent."
As expected, the trial court declared the birthright citizenship executive order unconstitutional. Given what was viewed as established precedent, the Trump Administration had to anticipate losses in the lower courts. That is why I called this EO the most vulnerable and least…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) January 23, 2025
Others said it was "settled law."
Since the passing of the 14th Amendment, the question of Birthright Citizenship was settled law. Then, in 2016 and again in 2024, Donald Trump, a racist, is elected President. Suddenly this racist is trying to rewrite 14’th Amendment. Pathetic.
— Jeff Artis (@GrandaddySpeak1) April 1, 2026
I'll note that no Leftist says such a thing about, say, the Second or First Amendment. But I digress.
The ACLU and others, including the NAACP, said that President Trump was trying to "unwind a century of settled law." Outlets like PBS said similarly, calling the 14th Amendment "settled law for over 125 years." NPR called birthright citizenship "understood" for more than a century and a half.
I am not optimistic that the Roberts Court will uphold President Trump's executive order, but I am positive the ruling will not be 9-0. It will probably be 5-4 against Trump, perhaps 6-3. But even if it's 8-1, he's gotten at least one Supreme Court Justice to set the precedent that will, one day, undo this insane interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It took 40 years to chip away at the arguments that upheld Roe v. Wade, but thanks to the persistence of the pro-life movement, we slowly changed the balance of the Court until we got the Dobbs ruling.
And that's the lesson for Republicans here: keep fighting on these issues, even if people say something is "settled law" or that precedent makes even raising such questions a hill that isn't worth dying on. It is, and President Trump just proved that. He got the Supreme Court to agree to hear oral arguments on birthright citizenship, an issue so many people swore up and down was long "settled."
Clearly, the Supreme Court disagrees.
That’s how change happens. Not in one sweeping victory, but in a series of challenges that force the courts, politicians, and the country, to confront uncomfortable truths. President Trump's executive order may not end birthright citizenship as we know it today. But he has already done something just as important: he has now made the question unavoidable.
And once a question like that is on the table, it doesn’t go away. It gets argued, refined, and revisited until, one day, the Court answers it differently.
