This won’t even be close. It could be 9-0 against Trump. But Wednesday is just the arguments. 
Ridiculous Framing
The phasing by Leading Report is purposely silly.
It is also true, and about 99 percent more likely the Supreme Court will strike Trump’s executive order.
Supreme Court Fight Over Birthright Citizenship
CNN reports Supreme Court fight over birthright citizenship threatens ‘chaos’ in proving newborns’ status
Justice Brett Kavanaugh sounded like a fired-up prosecutor last year as he shot off a withering series of nuts-and-bolts questions about how President Donald Trump would carry out his plan to rewrite of the way birthright citizenship has been understood in the United States for more than a century.
Would hospitals have to change the way they process newborns? Kavanaugh demanded. Would state governments have to do something different? How would federal officials determine citizenship if a birth certificate no longer sufficed?
“Federal officials will have to figure that out essentially,” US Solicitor General D. John Sauer managed to say amid a fusillade of rapid-fire queries.
“How?” Kavanaugh pressed.
“So, you can imagine a number of ways —” Sauer began.
“Such as?” Kavanaugh interjected.
As the Supreme Court prepares to consider the merits of Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship on Wednesday, most of the same practical questions Kavanaugh raised a year ago remain unanswered. Some of those questions speak to the bureaucratic nightmare that Americans — including US citizens — might face documenting a child’s immigration status. Others go to the very heart of what it means to be a US citizen.
Most of the court’s arguments this week will deal with the history of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which makes clear that “all persons born” in the United States who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. Written arguments from both Trump and the groups challenging the policy focus heavily on what the framers meant by “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Buried beneath that theoretical debate is uncertainty about how Trump’s order, which he signed on the first day of his second term, would be implemented if the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court lets it take effect. Kavanaugh’s inquiries last year suggested not only that Trump’s idea was radical, but that it might also be unworkable.
Federal agencies have rolled out a series of guidance documents explaining how people would apply for passports, Social Security numbers and safety-net programs under Trump’s plan. But some of those materials have raised as many questions as they’ve answered.
If allowed to take effect, the policy would create “a tidal wave of legal confusion and chaos,” predicted Jill Habig, the CEO of Public Rights Project, a nonprofit that provides legal support to state and local governments and that filed a brief in the case opposing the administration.
“This is the problem with trying to change hundreds of years of the constitutional text and precedent with what is essentially a memo,” Habig said. “Every system that we have in this country to prove citizenship is typically based on just a birth certificate.”
The 14th Amendment was adopted to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, the administration has said, not people temporarily in the country illegally. And only since the court handed down a landmark precedent upholding the idea of birthright citizenship in 1898, the government says, has a “latter-day misconception” of the clause’s scope taken hold.
“That interpretation is untenable,” the Department of Justice told the Supreme Court.
And, it says, it has “incentivized illegal entry into the United States and encouraged ‘birth tourists’ to travel to the United States solely to acquire citizenship for their children.”
But if allowed to take effect, Trump’s order would have an impact far beyond the people it ostensibly targets. Critics say it would fundamentally change the meaning of US citizenship from a concept that is tied to geography to one that is linked instead to parentage. And that, they say, is a sharp departure from what the founding generation had in mind.
EO Going Up in Flames
This one is not even close. Trump’s executive order is going up in flames, most likely 7-2 or greater.
9-0 would not at all be surprising.
These are just oral arguments coming up. But those arguments may give a hint of whether this is 9-0 against Trump, 6-3, or 7-2.
Regardless, this silliness is nearly over.
Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
On February 20, 2025 I noted Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
The Appeals Court ruling was 95 percent likely, so this is no shocker. But let’s review the case.
I am not going to rehash this again.
Those who need a refresher course and those who do not understand the Constitution, precedent, and a concept called Res Judicata would do themselves a favor and read the above link.
Trump is going down again, big time.
POTUS made it part of his schedule to listen to oral arguments at The Supreme Court today.
Melania initially entered the USA under false documentation… which means Barron Trump would not be a US citizen.
Alito and Thomas would not dare disobey Dear Leader’s orders. Check their VOTING RECORD in SCOTUS cases.
Why isn’t the Left concerned about “creating legal confusion snd chaos” from policies they advocate such as the graduated income tax?
They picked the day MLK Jr was assassinated to hear the arguments, I wonder if that’s a part of the narrative?
Giving MLK the Caesar Chavez treatment for being a scumbag? Now THAT – I LIKE!
Three weeks from Tuesday the Court will hear arguments on the number of angels that can dance upon the head of a pin.
This also will not time well spent.
If, somehow, the SCOTUS rules in favour of Trump here, then I would recommend those that would cheer it on to be very certain about their ancestry. Because it would mean that a lot of people all of the sudden are not as American as they thought they were. For example both Trump’s parents are immigrants. How did Trump himself get his citizenship?
I believe this case is about ending the practice of BRC, and not going backwards. I could be wrong, but what would the point be?
Correct. Any change to the rules won’t apply retroactively, at least not to anyone who became a citizen before Trump’s EO.
However, this is all completely moot as the US constitution is quite clear that jus soli is the law of the land in the USA (and not just the USA but practically in the entire western hemisphere).
How “Jus soli” is implemented is in question, and the real issue at hand. Only 30 some odd countries have unconditional clauses, and all other Countries have some form or restriction, or rules for engagement for the request. It’s not nearly that simple…
Why should US law be compared to other countries
It shouldn’t and it’s idiotic to do so
Laws or rather lack of laws, can have consequences is why. Decisions to do certain things, if only they can be accomplished in 30 Countries, means all 30 of those Countries will be potentially targeted, which many say that many indeed are, but I digress…
You stop the issue from occurring by sticking together as Nations, to not allow things to happen in just your Country or a small majority of the overall amount of Countries, because your laws are different.
Now perhaps your Country desires this. Maybe because they welcome everyone, or maybe for a nefarious reason or reasons. You don’t want to find out after things occurred that you lost control over due to your poor decision making years earlier… just saying.
I am not saying it will, but it could the way things are set up now, or so I am told by the press reports I see and hear. Why unnecessarily risk that with your Country? Unless they are playing me and no such thing could possibly occur by anything that is happening. Ask the UK about NO Go Zones and more then they can count probably… things can happen when you’re not paying attention and the laws are lax.
Besides a couple of exceptions, unconditional BRC is actually the norm in the Western hemisphere.
Don’t misunderstand me though, I am not necessarily saying that it should be the norm in the USA, it’s just that this is currently the law of the land here and as such should followed.
Jus soli is a concept rooted in the Common Law which is the legal system that exist in most English speaking countries.
Several Common Law jurisdictions have limited jus soli in recent decades and that’s certainly their right to do so. However, they went through a proper process to change their laws to do so rather than trying to use a patently unconstitutional end-run around it.
I don’t know enough about the case to be certain, so I am posting this as a thought. If BRC turns out to be based on an invalid interpretation of the law, wouldn’t there be a chance that this now applies backward too? Aren’t those citizenships then invalid, or is there at least the risk of that? My point is that I am not sure that wouldn’t be the case so I would be hesitant to call for an end to it on the grounds that the current law doesn’t support it. Ending it with new legislation sounds a lot safer and more clear to me.
I would think, because the law has been questioned and upheld already, that going backwards would not be an available option for those cases, or the majority.
I would not doubt there are nefarious goings on like in many cases involving the desire for citizenship, but those would be dealt with on merit individually I suspect, and a blanket will be tossed over the past happenings.
How “Jus soli” is implemented is in question, and the real issue at hand. Only 30 some odd countries have unconditional clauses, and all other Countries have some form or restriction, or rules for engagement for the request. It’s not nearly that simple…
You would have to prove that your parents were legally given US citizenship upon entry or certainly before you were born.
I have ancestral history of when all my relatives entered the country and where they originated through census records. They settled into an area that was not even a state and long before the Civil War. They never went through a naturalization process, just Ellis island.
Does that mean I’m a citizen or not? It gets complicated fast.
I can see how it would get complicated fast. They will probably have to create waivers for certain situations (Ex. Up until said Yr you’re automatically considered a Citizen?) Maybe even requirements perhaps? (Ex. Learn the English Language and American History).
I guess to me, do so in a manner that’s not harmful, costly, unsafe or a burden on our society to existing Americans. Have as much Legal Compassion as possible, within the rules for said Citizenship.
Then: Welcome to America!!!
Many, if not most nations in the world do not grant birthright citizenship to children of parents illegally in the country. They seem to have survived.
Strange that you “favour” BRC in the US from wherever you really live. As is your professed concern about blue states subsidizing red states.
I do not favour BRC as I stated. I think it’s the wrong approach in fact. But I am questioning if this is the right way to go about stopping it and if there are unintended consequences.
And while I do not live in the USA, my wife is American and my kids have two nationalities so I do feel invested in the country.
I could see the law being a bit tightened and with restrictions and expectations added, much like most all other Countries.
I don’t foresee issues to past BRC individuals, except maybe some case by case questionable request from the past, that surface as a result.
Much like closing the border with restrictions to be allowed access, we are closing Citizenship, until some things are met that are now required. All good, and shame on people theorizing it’s a bad thing. It’s Our Country, so a little bit tighter rules can only assist America and it’s current Citizens, without any harm to anyone.
If the goal is good, then too bad Trump did not pick a way that would work. He has a majority in both chambers, there must be a legally sound way to getting it done. Even if that means negotiating with democrats to get a deal. Actual negotiating, not just bluffing your way through when everyone sees you have a losing hand.
While I agree his approach is not always the best, on this issue I believe there is merit to legally ask the question, or see if a rule can be added perhaps? There is a reason almost all Countries don’t allow what we do. Our Emotions are probably the biggest difference…
I do agree that asking the question isn’t bad. At worst it wastes some time and effort but nothing huge on the grand scale of things. I worry more about Trump’s response if / when he loses this case but that is aside from the fact that merely asking the question isn’t bad.
But the article was about the likelyhood this would success at SCOTUS, and I don’t think it will, if only because of jurisprudence. I brought up the concern for current citizenship as one of the reasons I wondered if this would be a good idea, and I still do even after your responses. I agree it will likely not be a problem, but I haven’t seen certainty about that yet in the responses here.
By an EO he would sign moments after SCOTUS rules
So Justice Kavanaugh wants to know how or by what process citizenship would be determined if not by birthright.
Simple answer.. The same way other countries do it. Next question.
That was the exact response that INSTANTLY occurred to me. Related, if we enforced some of the Mexican laws on immigration the howling from some sectors would likely be audible from orbit.
It makes sense. But does that work within the current legal framework in the USA? Or would new legislation be needed? If the latter, why isn’t Trump working on that?
Well a hear one of the doge kids down loaded everyone’s ss info and took it to his next gig.
He best hope his new gig, can be done in jail…
The illegal immigration party strikes again. From Zerohedge:
“Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D, Wa.) wants reparations for illegal immigrants for the trauma caused by immigration enforcement.
At the same time, various Democrats are making clear that they want to entirely defund and eliminate Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”
These people are not fighting for the rights and welfare of US citizens, and they have made that very clear. Their “job #1” is prioritizing illegal immigrants ahead of US citizens and legal immigration.
Reparations are typically awarded to victims of human rights violations or serious injustices, not to individuals who experience trauma from committing illegal acts.
If you are a victim of a crime, you may have the right to seek compensation, but this does not apply to those who break the law themselves.
Game over!
I don’t think that’s correct. Even if you break the law, you are still protected by the law. And there is plenty of reason to assume that human rights are being violated by the way ICE rounds people up and holds them.
– I don’t think that’s correct. Even if you break the law, you are still protected by the law. And there is plenty of reason to assume that human rights are being violated by the way ICE rounds people up and holds them.
> Protected yes, but not from what you do or did. Just wanted that clarified. In your ex. If ICE is doing so, they should face the consequences for those actions. I do believe many Agents have been charged with violations, and they did and some still are paying the price for doing so. Same happens in our Incarceration systems.
Has the number of births ever been quantified?
Given our history, demographics and that Statue of Liberty?
I’m not for illegal immigration, and prefer skills based or financial strength criteria as qualifiers. New Zealand has it right.
Epoch times reporting on POTUS sitting in today on oral arguments:
About 8 percent of all births in the United States in 2023 were to illegal immigrants and legal temporary visitors.
The Center for Immigration Studies estimated in February 2025 that in 2023, up to 250,000 babies were born to illegal immigrants, and about 70,000 babies were born to legal temporary visitors. Slightly under 4 million births took place in the United States in 2023, the Centers for Disease Control estimated.
– The following landmark court decisions changed the interpretation.
> So why cant another court decision change the interpretation once again?
– By Establishing a new legal principle OR concept.
> They brought emotions into logical reasoning, that’s for certain. Emotions nearly always have flaws, well because they are emotional. The concept is further skewed by the shear number of people’s emotions involved.
– overturning precedent based on its harmful effects or flaws in its reasoning.
> I thought the “New Principle” was to throw out the old way (Departing from Prior Practice), and moving forward with the New? That’s not “Stare Decisis” which is “standing by things decided” which doesn’t at all sound like “Departing from Prior Practice” in place of “Standing By things already decided”.
– establishing a test or a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions.
> You can’t always do that as any case can be unique from any other. Same questions asked may have different answers when framed differently let’s say. The crux is getting it right to the “Rule of Law” as written (Stands Today), and with no emotions thrown in, or past precedence on 2 similar cases 75 years ago, Etc.
>> Let’s not forget to consider the “Intent” of the law as written at that time. How it impacted things then, as written. Now look again how it May NOT HAVE impacted things IF written today. Point being things do change, and with it precedent must as well, as a differing set of circumstances may or may not have applied. Is law not ambiguous by definition? That’s why the “rule of Lenity” came about.
>>> Of course there is the matter of res judicata (RJ) that can be reversed under certain circumstances, typically through a collateral attack based on procedural or jurisdictional issues. However, these exceptions are limited and usually do not challenge the merits of the original judgment itself. Precedent has already been turned over before, and also the law was changed based upon emotions imo, before that even occurred. So at minimum twice it’s been changed already, reinterpreted and redefined, so how does any of this apply then? It’s already been tossed aside on multiple occasions prior to now, and since the RJ
I have no idea how a judge or the SJC mat or may not rule, it I do not think RJ applies any longer on this issue at this point… Any Lawyers out there? So how does RJ deal with issues such as this situation, or would that not apply here? If the precedent was upended already, or the whole premise has changed already once or twice? No precedent actually exist then, at that point, does it?
“Being an American is more than a birthright. It is something we must prove worthy everyday, failure to do so insults those who have sacrificed all on our behalf.”
― Mark W Boyer
The Communist Chinese send elite CCP members to the USA to have babies over the last decades. These children will return to USA as adult citizens to do the CCP bidding in the USA. Fact or Fiction
blatantly stupid
Read Silent Coup by Peter Schweizer. Calling someone stupid when you are uninformed…bad form.
I think the magnitude of this happening is debatable, but to dismiss it completely is knee-jerk Libertarianism of the highest degree.
The grand irony of this birthright citizenship coming up right as the united states is in a demographic death spiral is a bit amusing. If republican racists wanted to do something they should have done it 100 years ago, it’s too late now.
https://www.achrnews.com/articles/165993-big-red-flag-trades-looking-at-seismic-labor-shortage-by-2030
100 years too late and $40 trillion dollars too short.
Get ready for inflation! inflation! inflation!
“It’s Trump bigot turtles all the way down and inflation all the way up!”
Do worry, Trump will find a way to make things even worse.™
It costs $15,000 per pupil per year in the K-12 public school system. There are likely 5 million illegals in the public school system at any one time. That’s $75 billion right there. And that does not include anchor babies which could double the amount nor does it include all the benefits anchor babies are entitled to such as WIC, SNAB, EBT etc. How many illegals pay anything close to $15,000 a year in taxes even if working on the books?
Now run along and play in your sandbox.
What utter nonsense. You count the 5 million as liability but THOSE are the people that will be working in america paying your social security and medicare because this country has 80+ million socialist geezers and growing.
Clearly you’re MAGA because you’re doing the math all wrong.
Oh and don’t forget $40 trillion in debt, who’s going to pay for that moron?
Just my birth certificate,wouldn’t be sufficient.
My parents wouldn’t either. Do I have to trace myself to pre-civil war (pre Amendment) or pre-Constitution?
Pre-Cambrian
Just got back from picking up my daughter from her lifeguard job.
On the way back Trumps motorcade was as usual headed to the Palm Beach airport because the major road there (Southern Boulevard) was all blocked off. Happens every weekend (or most since he rarely remains in Washington on weekends) at the exact same time and route. You’d think he’d mix it up a little for safety reasons.
If any one ever want to take a shot that’s the time and place to do it.
I heard Florida is just full of crazy people too.
Any of them equipped with RPGs?
shot? try drone. If something happens, I bet it will be a drone or two.
I didn’t necessarily mean a shot like a bullet but rather a shot as in an attempt.
Not sure drone would have a chance unless they go close to super sonic speed. Lots of air cover during that trip.
Not much they can do about the various choke points between arrival & destination.