Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship Amid Controversy

By Emily Bazelon and David French

Emily Bazelon: Hello, David. I find myself relieved and concerned about the Supreme Court’s recent decisions. Birthright citizenship remains intact. The Federal Reserve retains its independence. These are positive outcomes.

The decision on birthright citizenship, particularly in Trump v. Barbara, is noteworthy. Chief Justice John Roberts penned a convincing majority opinion. He emphasized that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to nearly everyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ legal status. Some exceptions remain, like children of diplomats and hostile forces. This ruling dismisses the disruptive notion from President Trump’s executive order challenging birthright citizenship.

David French: Hi, Emily. I am similarly relieved but fear this debate will persist. The narrow majority of five justices raises concerns. Will this become a litmus test, reminiscent of Roe v. Wade, within MAGA circles? There is a risk of appointing judges who align with Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent.

Emily: That’s concerning. Birthright citizenship has significantly benefited the U.S. It embodies the spirit of the Statue of Liberty, encourages immigrant integration, and fosters social mobility across generations. This principle prevents isolated communities of guest workers from forming.

The majority upheld this fundamental promise, as Roberts described. However, only five justices supported it: Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and the three liberal justices. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the judgment but based on a federal statute from 1940 that Congress could alter. I expected broader consensus, a 9 to 0 vote or at least 7 to 2, with Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting. The majority’s textual and historical arguments are compelling.

Does this division fuel MAGA sentiments about birth tourism, which Alito criticized by labeling the ruling “a serious mistake”?