Below is my column on Fox.com on the birthright citizenship case. Republicans in Congress have already submitted legislation for both a new constitutional amendment and specific bars on birth tourism. The legislation will obviously move more quickly and, if challenged, could give the Court another opportunity to address the issue. However, the most direct way of addressing the issue remains a 28th Amendment.
Here is the column:
Today, Folarin Balogun secured a spot on the American soccer team for the World Cup…for a second time.
That may be the most positive spin I can offer to those upset by today’s 5-4 decision in favor of birthright citizenship. Balogun, one of the stars on our team, was born to Nigerian parents visiting the United States and then raised in England.
According to the Supreme Court, he is — and was always intended to be — a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is a conclusion that divided the court 5-4, but, as in soccer, a one-point win is as good as a nine-point win.
Roberts wrote for the majority that “The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
The victory for birthright citizenship was due to the joining of Chief Justice John Roberts (who authored the decision) and Justice Amy Coney Barrett with the three liberal justices. They found the language and history of the amendment to be clear and, relying on prior rulings dating back decades, concluded that birth alone in this country is enough to confer citizenship — even if born to a tourist or someone briefly on our soil.
It is a view that is rejected by the vast majority of countries, which rightfully view birthright citizenship as bonkers, including some which followed the practice and then rescinded it. The United States remains one of the outliers in maintaining this ill-considered practice.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, effectively arguing that this is the invention of the Court, which refused to reconsider its lazy prior analysis. That included the Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which expanded birthright citizenship beyond what the Reconstruction Congress had ever “contemplated.” He noted that the Court could have resolved the case on narrower grounds consistent with the 14th Amendment: “Wong Kim Ark addressed only the citizenship of a child born to parents who were lawfully and permanently domiciled in the United States.”
The 5-4 decision unleashed another furious broadside on social media against Barrett, particularly after she authored the 5-4 decision on mail-in ballots again, this time with Roberts and her liberal colleagues.
Barrett hit a nerve as one of the three Trump appointees, whom many hoped would be more in the vein of Alito or Thomas. Instead, she often writes with Roberts.
The attacks on Barrett ignored that there are good-faith arguments on both sides of the birthright citizenship case. They also ignore that she regularly voted with the conservatives and for positions of the Administration. For example, she voted to support states in requiring transgender athletes to compete with their biological sex. She previously was the most vocal justice in rejecting transgender status as a protected class akin to race or religion.
President Trump has lashed out at his nominees over their adverse rulings. However, they remain one of his most impressive and positive legacies. President Trump said that he wanted independent and principled conservatives. He got them in Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. They are all extraordinary jurists who have dramatically elevated the Court’s intellectual discussions.
When I testified at Gorsuch’s confirmation in the Senate, I told the senators that they were wrong to pigeonhole the nominee: he would go wherever his convictions took him. That has proven to be the case, and it is a great credit to Trump that he selected such independent minds.
On birthright citizenship, the matter now rests not with the court but the country. We have never truly had a national debate over the practice. The basis and future of birthright citizenship have remained matters almost exclusively for the courts.
We must now decide whether to pursue such a debate as a constitutional amendment.
While Congress can pass legislation cracking down on birth tourism, there is only so much that such laws can do in questioning why particular births occurred in the United States, such as the birth of Balogun.
I can think of no more appropriate debate to have as we celebrate our 250th anniversary than what it means to be a citizen of this unique republic.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
China is crafting plans as we speak to deploy their preggo-squad of paratroopers to US magic soil.
Sure, sure pal.
We are told by many on the left that the Constitution is a “living document”, that it should be interpreted according to current political and popular trends. As such it is indeed ironic to see that these same folks are comfortable with the strict interpretation of the cast in stone text of the 14th to mean anybody who happens to be born on US soil is a citizen, period – end of story. What happened to that living document they so embrace?
Indeed
Another Court Decision:
Postal Service Must Deliver Mail-In Ballots
A federal judge in Washington on Wednesday blocked the United States Postal Service from carrying out changes to its delivery of mail-in ballots, writing that recent policies directed by President Trump ran afoul of legal terms the agency accepted more than four years ago to ensure timely delivery of mail ballots.
In a brief opinion, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan pointed to a settlement agreement reached between the N.A.A.C.P. and the Postal Service in December 2021, after the group sued the government arguing that postal delays threatened to disenfranchise voters. At that time, the agency agreed to “prioritize monitoring and timely delivery of election mail.”
Judge Sullivan, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, wrote that the Postal Service’s proposal, which includes not delivering mail-in ballots in states that decline to hand over voter data to the federal government, violated the settlement agreement, which the parties had agreed would run through the 2028 election cycle.
Judge Sullivan wrote that Mr. Trump’s order appeared “designed to exert federal control over who in the United States may be sent a mail-in or absentee ballot in federal elections by the Postal Service.” He wrote that the agency had previously agreed to outline plans before each national election and meet with the N.A.A.C.P. to explain how it would ensure efficient delivery of election-related mail.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/01/us/politics/judge-trump-postal-service.html?smid=nytcore
Another Ruling Against Trump
Two federal judges on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from implementing new restrictions on a student loan forgiveness program that would have barred public service workers from receiving debt relief if their employers are deemed to have a “substantial illegal purpose.”
The rulings, issued by Biden-appointed judges in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., came just one day before the new eligibility rules were set to take effect.
The Trump administration had sought to add new rules to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program as part of its targeted overhaul of government programs that do not align with the administration’s priorities.
More than 20 states, along with a coalition of nonprofit groups, challenged the rule in a pair of lawsuits, arguing it would allow the Department of Education to target organizations that support causes considered disfavorable to the administration, including transgender healthcare and immigration advocacy.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5949409-judges-strike-down-trump-administration-student-loan-forgiveness-overhaul/
…………………………………
These restrictions would have suspended student loan forgiveness to public employees in so-called ‘sanctuary cities’. Teachers and cops, for instance, would have been told, “We can’t forgive your student loan because your city isn’t loyal to Trump”.
Alright, lets see him enforce it then
Few seen to understand the issue. Birthright citizenship is NOT children born to illegal immigrants, who ARE under the jurisdiction of the United States. It’s children born to foreign women in the United States who then go back to their native countries taking their American-born child with them. As far as national debate, it was decided in 1866 when Republicans controlled everything and wanted to remain in control for perpetuity.
For anyone who was following my earlier comment about amending/compromising the 14th Amendment with a more provisional concept of automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, a friend just told me today that Congressman Andy Barr has just submitted something to Congress to end it entirely, similar to Rand Paul (no birthright unless at least one parent is legal or citizen, etc.)
So why X and Esquire (are they the same person?) jumped on me, I don’t know. My thoughts were more mild.
Lin – I appreciate your even-keeled way of expressing your ideas, and that your ideas are never extreme or wacky. I did see that Esquire’s response used the term “supreme constitutional right.” In fact, two of Esquire’s responses used that phrase.
To me this suggests Esquire may, in fact, be X. There is no such thing as a “supreme constitutional right.” That concept does not appear anywhere in the law. This would be consistent with X’s usual practice of making things up out of thin air and pretending they’re real. Like when X said Clive Johnston was using a megaphone, or when X said the Kelo dissenters believed it was constitutional to take private property for private use, or when X said the judicial branch does not declare the law, i.e., “say what the law is” per C.J. Marshall.
“To me this suggests Esquire may, in fact, be X. “
Both use AI to think, and both get things terribly wrong.
AI is an incredibly useful tool that I expect will change life as much as the industrial revolution.
It will massively improve human productivity – and that ALWAYS displaces jobs – if you are in a job that AI will make more productive – either learn AI – so that you get to keep your job or learn some job that AI is not going to effect.
But AI is NOT a substitute for Critical Thinking
AI will add machines to the long list of people who will tell you absolutely everything that you want to know.
But just like when people tell you things YOU still have to figure out what is right and what is wrong.
The AI capacities we have today – are going to take atleast a generation to fully realize – if not more.
There are capabilities unrelated to AI – that developed 30 years ago – that we STILL have not fully realized.
And AI will improve BUT absent breakthroughs in fundimental Physics that I do not see happening soon – we are not going to see and order of magnitude improvement in AI in decades – only in OUR ability to use it.
I am not certain whether Sentient machines are possible.
I am certain they are not happening in my lifetime or my childrens.
Absent AI actually learning to think – which is not happening – Humans are still going to have to do the actual Thinking.
In the meantime AI is just an amplifier for OUR skills
And those who refuse to learn how to use it properly and effectively are doomed to be left behind.
Oldman, if you followed the conversation, I’d love to see your response to the below. Which is the correct reading of Lin’s proposal, is it merely exposure as she tried to later argue, or a test?
It’s a rhetorical statement. It’s not meant to be literal. A “supreme constitutional right” seems to be rhetorical.
Not sure who X is but i believe you mean me.
For all that want to read the conversation, Lin proposed a citizenship test, which is what I responded to.
Lin’s proposal:
“So, in the same light as media and progressives refusing to use the words “illegal aliens,” but instead preferring the term “undocumented,” maybe we can imagine a parallel initiative for children of illegal aliens, who can enjoy a presumed, undocumented “citizenship” under the 14th Amendment, along with its attendant protections, BUT upon reaching a certain age, must pass language and civics test for “documented” citizenship?”
Let’s try to use basic reading comprehension here. Is her suggestion based on the above that a language and civics test is required for certain children to have the same citizenship status as other children?
Or, does that mean, as Lin later tried to argue, that all she cares about is exposure to civics, no test needed?!
Perhaps anyone who thinks the latter is accurate would fail said language test.
you lie. I read it again. your distortion of “exposure” to civics learning has NOTHING to do with what you said. You came in swinging with a goal of defeating anything she said. You failed miserably and you fool no one, either in substance or motive. And this “later tried to argue” is nonsense. Looks like she was responding to your whackamole antics. If I were Lin, I would consider writing a lengthy Johnsay-style grand slam which would force you to create yet another ID on this blog.
“Exposure” is literally the word Lin used to suggest that the above “test” is not a test
Apparently you did not read the original conversation, where she said, following my question regarding how many Americans would actually fail such a test:
“You are gauging and comparing a retention rate of learning vs. an exposure rate. No go.”
In other words, “Above when I said “test” I meant “exposure” to civics education” which is as you can see above not at all what she said. Then, when I responded with the fact that even exposure rates to civics among children of immigrants are not universal (i.e, most private schools and homeschooling programs do not have to teach it), she demurred.
After rehashing this discussion here, Lin has of course been silent. That’s fine, but I’m only responding because she wanted to bring it up again.
(And to respond to some of the other comments, I am neither “X” nor “Esquire”. Just someone who understands doxxing is real and would prefer to remain anonymous.)
It is really sad to think that folks on this blog will not call a spade a spade. Lin often makes very intelligent and poignant comments here, but that does not mean that everything she says is correct. To see the usual suspects back her up – not based on substance but by somehow conflating my words to AI or someone else, is a real indictment as to the inability for rational thinking to prevail.
I read it. I presumed it was for the sake of the child at turning 18. The US is not so presumptuous as to think a child of foreign nationals can be claimed as a US citizen without consent.
Your reading isn’t what she presents.
What are you talking about?!
What is “it”? The “initiative” involving inferior citizenship status for minor children of illegal aliens until they pass a test at a “certain age” for full citizenship status?
Are you trying to say that adding this new test for citizenship is “for the sake of the child”?!
And how on Earth does the above have anything to do with “claiming” children “without consent”?!
Is a “test” a test requirement or an exposure requirement? That is literally the whole question. Jesus.
give it up, bad loser.
Lin,
It seems X, Esquire and a few of the annonys are all one in the same person.
They use AI as if it is a end all be all and try to dress up the AI responses as their own.
If anyone has done any kind of computer coding, garbage in, garbage out. S. Meyer has noted it more than a few times X own AI responses counterdict its self.
But what is not being disputed is the facts presented are not being rebutted. Even if they use AI they are not wrong. That is the issue.
It can be a very useful tool to research facts and find the evidence needed to prove a point and that is being done very effectively.
This could not have happened if not for the courts. SCOTUS delivered the haymaker. 💪
^^^ Another haymaker at mail-in ballots. It was a right, then a left, another upper cut and down for the count.
Hear ye, hear ye, it could not have been done without the court.
The DSA consists of direct and mortal enemies of the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
And… so what. Fight them at the polls – where it counts. Beat them back at every level. Above all, at the school district level. I do. You?