Jonathan Turley, a Fox News contributor and professor at George Washington University Law School, weighed in on Wednesday’s oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case that could reshape how the United States interprets birthright citizenship, as the Trump administration seeks to limit it for children of illegal immigrants and so-called birth tourism.
Turley noted that even the Court’s liberal justices appeared to lean toward an originalist reading of the Constitution, raising concerns about whether the administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment aligns with its original purpose. He also added that because the conservative justices may be more inclined to rely on precedent rather than reading into the language, the Trump administration could face an uphill battle in this case.
🚨NEW🚨 @JonathanTurley says it's INSANE that we continue embracing birthright citizenship @DailyCaller pic.twitter.com/G81xdzaZKM
— Nicole Silverio (@NicoleMSilverio) April 2, 2026
"I mean, the fact that we are one of the few countries that continues to embrace birthright citizenship is perfectly insane," Turley said. "And it is a great danger to this government and to this republic."
"So the question for these justices is not necessarily if they agree with birthright citizenship. I expect the majority does not. But this is what I call in my Supreme Court class, a default case. It's when the record is messy," he continued. "Where do the justices run home to? And what was really astonishing yesterday is it appeared that we might have nine originalists on the court because the liberal justices started to channel Scalia and to say: oh, you know, we've got to stick with the original intent here."
In a case like this, the justices are likely to fall back on their judicial philosophies, given the murky and conflicting precedent. Both liberal and conservative members of the Court appeared skeptical of the Trump administration’s argument, with some raising concerns that, under the proposed interpretation, the children of formerly enslaved people at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted might not have been guaranteed birthright citizenship, potentially undermining the Amendment’s original intent.
Amy Coney Barrett to John Sauer: "You say the purpose of the 14th amendment was to put all newly freed slaves on equal footing and so they would be citizens. But that's not textual." pic.twitter.com/D3HxaWtizW
— Lucas Sanders 👊🏽🔥🇺🇸 (@LucasSa56947288) April 1, 2026
"These are justices when they look at other rights, like the Second Amendment, treat that language as barely a speed bump," Turley went on. "And they say, well, we have to look at this living constitution and the problems we're facing today. Well, the problems we're facing today on birthright citizenship are existential in my view."
"But conservatives tend to be, well, conservative," he added. "So when their default is that they don't read much into the language, and they seem to be going back to the precedent here."
That tendency could be disastrous for the Trump administration's goal, as at least four conservative justices appeared skeptical of the administration's argument.