His amusing post aside, Trump is wrong on seeking legislation overturn the ruling. 
China Win
Truth Social: I would like to congratulate President Xi, and the Great Country of China, on their massive Birthright Citizenship WIN! President DONALD J. TRUMP
Jun 30, 2026, 11:30 AM
False Hope Silliness
Truth Social: Trump’s efforts to reverse birthright citizenship may succeed with or without SCOTUS: justthenews.com/government/whi
Jun 30, 2026, 7:31 AM
Legislation Nonsense
Truth Social: The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process. No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support! President DONALD J. TRUMP
Jun 30, 2026, 10:23 AM
Trump and others are already perpetuating the myth Congress can modify the result.
It’s not unexpected, but Trump does not understand the constitution or the ruling.
Roberts for the Majority
Held: Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
That’s all you need to know. Legislation cannot overturn a Constitutional ruling.
It would take a Constitutional Amendment or the Court would have to reverse itself.
The odds of a Constitutional Amendment are zero. The odds of this Court reversing itself are also zero for the foreseeable future.
Ron DeSantis
DeSantis: “Well, the decision prevents Congress from doing just that. So, no, he couldn’t have successfully asked Congress. The Court is saying that citizenship is mandated by the Constitution for the children of foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.“
Grok
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in Trump v. Barbara upholds broad birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, consistent with Wong Kim Ark and historical jus soli principles. Executive Order 14160’s exceptions for unlawful or temporary parental presence were rejected. Barrett joined the majority opinion; Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment. Altering this interpretation requires a constitutional amendment. Your outcome call was accurate.
Gorsuch Weird Dissent
The dissent from Neil Gorsuch in the birthright citizenship case is actually very interesting. He basically says that he would deny birthright citizenship to children of temporary visitors but not to illegal immigrants who lived here permanently. So on the question of whether illegal immigrants’ kids are citizens, it’s actually more like a 7-2 decision.
Gorsuch was arguing against himself in his dissent. Here it is.
Finally, just because the executive order has some lawful applications and can survive a facial challenge does not mean it is lawful across the board and immune from narrower legal challenges.
Perhaps Wong Kim Ark does not squarely foreclose the government’s position. After all, that case addressed a child born to parents who lawfully resided in this country. Still, I wonder: Is a child born here to parents who have long chosen to make this Nation their permanent home not a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment solely because his parents’ presence violates statutory law?
If those parents are not domiciled here, then where are they domiciled? And if the answer is nowhere, how can we reconcile that conclusion with this Court’s longstanding recognition that every person is domiciled somewhere? See Desmare v. United States, 93 U. S. 605, 610 (1877).
Because the executive order is not facially invalid, these questions may not be properly before us. But their answers are undeniably important to a Nation committed to a view of citizenship open to all children born here to parents who can call this country their home.
The dissents were all over the place.
It’s as if Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh (who concurred on narrow grounds), wanted to throw Trump a bone.
Regardless, Birthright Citizenship is here to stay. Legislation to change the ruling is a useless waste of time.
What About Banning Pregnant Foreigners from Entering?
As a legislative matter, I am sure that would work, at least in theory. In practice, there is zero chance of getting 60 votes in the Senate.
What about an Executive Order barring pregnant women from entering the country on some fictitious national security grounds?
I have no opinion right now on how the courts would react. But I do think Trump would offend a lot of women if he did that.
Understanding the Ruling
This case is not about decisions we might make differently today. It’s about interpreting the law as it exists, not how we want the law to be but isn’t.
The Supreme Court does not rule on wisdom of the laws or the wisdom of the Constitution. Rather, the Court rules on the law and it interprets the Constitution.
The wisdom of the 14th Amendment (or lack thereof) does not matter.
Thus, this decision was correct no matter what you think constitutional framers would do differently today because the latter is irrelevant and can’t be proven anyway.
In all of the heated debates I have had on this topic for a year, few seem to understand these simple points.
Why I Got the Case Correct
I got the case correctly not because of what I wanted or didn’t, but because I applied the principles above in my analysis.
The same applies to the Supreme Court rulings on tariffs and on the Fed.
Fearless Predictions
Please recall Fearless Predictions, Ten Key Events to Expect in 2026
#1: Trump will Lose His Supreme Court Battle on Reciprocal Tariffs
Expect a 6-3 margin against Trump, possibly 7-2. I rate this a 75 percent chance.
#2: Trump will Lose His Supreme Court Battle on Birthright Citizenship
Expect a 7-2 vote against Trump. 9-0 would not be a surprise. I rate this a 90 percent chance.
#3: Trump will lose his Supreme Court battle over the right to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook.
Expect a 6-3 vote against Trump. I rate this a 80 percent chance.
A Rouge Trump
We don’t have a rogue court, we have a rouge president who does not give a damn about the Constitution or existing laws.
That is what the Court decided on tariffs, on Birthright Citizenship, and on the Fed (Powell and Lisa Cook).
Today’s ruling was an expected and welcome slap in the face of Trump. Everyone should be cheering.
Yes, everyone.
If executive orders could change the Constitution, imagine what Democrats will do the next time they hold the White House.
how about men too? It’s ridiculously offensive as a human being.
Yea Mish there is no doubt what the amendment says and the EO would be denied. But, do we actually believe that if the the writers of the 14th amendment in 1866 had any idea on how this amendment was being used for illegal aliens and others that the amendment would read exactly as it does today?
Another failure of Judges to Judge. Well a few of them got it.
Ken, Your statement that ‘writers of the….had any idea on how this amendment was being used’ can be used against the entirety of the US Constitution.
The founders of the US knew exactly what they were doing…they knew that they were establishing in broad strokes what the powers of the US Government was going to be.
You may disagree with the Judges and to be honest I personally do not like the Roberts Supreme Court I find it too reactionary but my liking or not liking is not the issue. If you don’t like the rulings then please feel free to start a movement which will change the US Constitution or even abolish it.
In case you haven’t noticed being an American citizen isn’t the prize it used to be.
If I were a foreigner visiting the US and my wife had a premature baby on Usonian soil and saw the baby being kidnapped by the US as one of their own would be a horrible tragedy. I’d have to possibly wait until the child reaches 18 to start the costly process to renounce a rapacious citizenship just because of an eventuality during a vacation.
I am very disappointed by Gorsuch in this decision. On the one hand he says the EO is unconstitutional (because it is inconsistent with the Wong Kim Ark decision, which Gorsuch says he agrees with), and on the other hand he says there is one small category where he thinks the EO might be legal (tourists who have a baby while in the US), and therefore it is wrong to throw out the EO. That just seems crazy—if the main purpose of the EO is to do something that is clearly unconstitutional, it should be struck down.
Trump will surely instruct TSA to buy thousands of ultrasound machines to test every fertile woman to see if they are pregnant, when arriving to the USA. Similar to genital inspections to enforce bathroom compliance, how else will we be sure the lady is not “Carrying?”
meanwhile: Why Jet Engines Aren’t “Made In China”
https://aakash.substack.com/p/why-jet-engines-arent-made-in-china
Not yet.
Stephen Miller threatens to ‘take a hard look’ at banning pregnant women entering America
What does he propose…giving every woman a pregnancy test before they can enter the U.S?.
He can just look at a woman and render her barren, with that ugly mug
What is his job, exactly?
Great call Mish!!
I understand the points and position Mish makes, but I do not like the ruling. Market ticker has my reasoning documented perfectly.
I suggest you dedicate the remainder of your life to passage of a Constitutional amendment, since you feel so strongly about this.
That will never occur. This would take more of a common sense approach to the issue by “both” parties. In cases it can be proven to be Nefarious, BRC is denied, but otherwise it’s the law.
Ah yes, the old “then let all the immigrants live in your house” canard, but in a new fun flavor. Gold star for you!
— Well, then neither does Clarence Thomas understand the constitution, who wrote a multiple-page rebuttal to this decision. Send him an email.
— As far as Neil Gorsuch, good luck with that. What is “permanent”? 1 year, 10 years? Will “intention” matter? If a couple manages to stay here for 2 years with the sole (but hidden) purpose to give that “entitling birth”, will they be considered permanent? Well, if the Dems win in ’28 it’ll be full open borders again, so it won’t matter.
— The decision is practically giving incentives for corrupt behaviors, an entire baby-making industry who will be called something in the future. Just like others are being called “DEI hires” etc. Or like the “Lebenskinder” of the past.
That’s not how you help in building a society.
— As far as Trump pushing (ridiculously) the gas sellers to reach $2.50, it’s because he knows it won’t happen again and he wants associates pictures for the 4th. It’s a vanity project. Under a future “Green New Deal”, expect European level prices ($9-$10).
I was dismayed by the USA border chaos in recent times.
But on the other hand, China has its demographic collapse problem. No immigration assures Japan is even further ahead on that curve. Trump apparently wants the USA to race them there — no pun intended.
The border chaos is a direct consequence of the broken, contradictory and badly implemented immigration system we have.
And Trump’s response to that, which included brutal crackdowns, mass reversal of refugee status, separation of families, making legal immigration even more difficult and attacks on birthright citizenship only made matters worse.
His intention was never to solve the immigration problem, but to weaponize the issue for his own benefit.
So legal immigration, has proven to be beneficial (labor, and growth as a result of that) for America’s economy, no doubt! There are reasons for this positive occurrence. It’s because it’s controlled.
We get to vet the request, add additional background information, work skills, and education level on certain topics they may be considered for. and have the person become part of the society, with all the support information, and in many cases a job awaiting them. I am 100% for Legal Immigration!!!
There is a right way and a wrong way to do this. “Legal Immigration” is a spectacular way of doing so, to protect Americans AND Our new legal workers and assimilating guest. The Harris / Biden way of Open Borders, is the most chaotic, useless, bad for America and it’s Citizens, and the refuges too quite frankly. They have no support, no means of legal work, no way to legally assimilate, and can be taken advantage of, and are!
This would be the worst possible outcome, and obviously the wrong way to do so IMO. I am 100% opposed to Illegal Immigration.
A completely open border means that Americans will rush in with US dollars, and start buying everything in sight: land, products, etc. To the point that the peso will collapse, nobody will want it. It’ll be the end of Mexico.
I’d say he’s orange rather than rouge 🙂
And while we’re at it, this is the same court that ruled that corporations are people.
In law corporations are artificial people. Ie. Subject to taxation, can be sued, etc.
This has been law for hundreds of years. We need a way for multiple humans to aggregate their resources and act as one. It is an enormous part of our prosperity. Yes, we could refine that in some particulars, as corporate form is licensed by government. Originally it was a grant of basically a monopoly by the English Crown to a group accomplishing some projects thought useful to the Crown (now styled the public). (One can go further back into the ancient world for predecessors.) Opening it to many humans was an advance.
Entities all through the government also need this to function, as well as other associative structures that need to have a concentrated function to borrow money, make contracts, etc.
I always startled to see people reach for this in such a general, demonizing fashion.
Corporate Personhood in 30 seconds https://uslawexplained.com/corporate_personhood
Should corporations have the right to vote? Should they have the right to contribute to/bribe politicians? Can corporations be jailed if they commit a felony?
There are clearly ways in which corporations are different than natural persons.
It is definitely a nuanced discussion that every society needs to hold. I personally believe that the ability for corporations to be able to contribute to political causes and parties is extremely detrimental to democratic societies. It is impossible to match funds via small dollar campaign donations (even if it is extremely popular) vs a corporate donation. e.g. we can see this clearly in terms of where this leads to in the US.
That is very well said Mish. So many want the Supreme Court to determine what the best policy is for our country. That is not their job.
Kavanaugh went against this and in effect reached for the “living Constitution” idea (so beloved of 20th century liberal jurisprudence, and the opposite of the originalists), when he argued that the 14th Amendment explicit language doesn’t apply, because so many immigrants have showed up more recently — i.e., that changed circumstances have changed the proper interpretation, meaning and application.
Self-styled originalists can display very interesting limberness in their reasoning, depending on the desired conclusion. This is a trait they share with the “living Constitution” crowd, but like to deny.
I wonder how Kavanaugh would apply this logic to the 2nd Amendment, what with automatic weapons being alien to the Framers’ experience.
Thanks
More accurately, people want the Supreme Court to do what they personally think is the best course for the country, however brainwashed they may be at the time.
“Finally, just because the executive order has some lawful applications and can survive a facial challenge does not mean it is lawful across the board and immune from narrower legal challenges.”
This is the correct takeaway for the whole debacle. Rather than following the ill-worded letter of the law, rulings should be made with respect to the spirit of the law behind this amendment. The amendment wasn’t a technicality added to bring entire families to the United States because a child was born here on a vacation Visa. The law was designed for people who have been here essentally their whole lives, and who shold be naturalized in. Bringing whole families over the day a baby is born here is just absurd.
Considering it took months to travel from Europe to the Americas, there would be few pregnant women who would make the trip
There was a woman from Saskatchewan Canada that had a premature baby at 7 months on her vacation in Hawaii. The hospital bill was over$1,000,000 because of incubators and special care as it was premature and couldn’t be moved for a couple of months. Her travel insurance wouldn’t cover her as they said pregnancy was a pre-existing condition. Her baby’s US citizenship was not much of a bonus in that case.
Hawaii’s Medicaid program would have covered the baby.
Neonatal care for preemies does cost a lot, in the US.
Babies born on the long boat ride over.
The spirit behind the amendment is clear!
That is as printed in the 1866 Congressional Globe. So don’t pretend otherwise.
That Mongolian family didn’t fly in for the day to have a baby. The world of 1866 looks nothing like the world, today. There was no monetary incentive, aka the dole, back then. A family couldn’t come here in 1866 without an expectation to work, because they would be unhoused and starved. If they were injured, no hospital would be forced to take care of them “for free” until they were completely healed.
As an aside, do you believe property owners should have no right to evict, for a year or more, for non-payment of rent? The modern day illegal immigration is used too often for the dole rather to provide productive work. Legal immigrants are much more likely to come here to assimilate. The 14th amedment is a loophole, in the modern world, for bad actors to enter the country for the economic incentive of Welfare. There is *nothing* Libertarian about that.
Legal immigration requires a very lengthy process, and you have to earn it. illegal immigration requires no process, other than entering the United States without fully disclosed permission, in other words, shady from the get-go. A lot of the illegal immigrants destroyed their identification papers right before crossing the border, as widely reported by mainstream media, not fringe.
While I appreciate your post, and am personally against illegal, but for legal immigration, the World has change in abundance, and more than many realize.
You do realize that we just had “The President” of Our Country release millions upon millions of “Illegals” freely into the Country, and nobody batted an eye… until President Trump was elected.
I am 100% for vetted legal immigration. I always have been, and most of my outstanding colleagues in the tech field have been vetted legal immigrants, who went through the multi-year process to prove they belonged here.
Hey Mish didn’t you know they reproduce by budding? Soon all of California will be Chinese (and probably richer for it). I welcome it, they’re not as retarded as some of this blog’s readership.
I thought the buds in California got smoked
Trump has existing broad power to limit pregnant foreign nationals in existing law. It’s not a myth and the precedent was set in Trump v. Hawaii in 2018. (Re-posting from last article comment, Mish) This is Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens…”
The Supremes upheld the broadest possible reading of the law. Essentially said if the President articulates any national interest, courts would likely leave it be. In 2018 it was the travel ban from many Muslim-majority countries. So he could do this, and like Mish mentioned could get da’ pregnant foreign national wimmens upset. But the power does appear to be already there. He has broad authority to set up any class of foreign nationals to keep out if in the national interest. .
Of course turning Border Patrol agents and TSA into border obstetricians could get “sporty”.
If you think this argument would work in court I really don’t know what to tell you lol
Sorry Cteamer…it already has worked for the administration and SCOTUS made it clear he has broad legal authority in such matters. Did you actually read the post and note the quote from the law or are you retreating to what you want to be true? I’m not saying it’s good or bad, but any president has this broad authority per the actual law.
Lol – the GOP going after pregnant women.
Love the optics!
Pregnant ALIEN woman. That is a different set of optics.
Then why didn’t he use this 10 years ago to ban the Muslims? I know he tried and he failed many times
Barring pregnant women would be, to me, no different than countries ensuring return travel is arranged but hey, I’m one who thinks this is a no brainer for a constitutional amendment should one even be attempted. Imagine thinking i could travel to Norway and give birth and expecting my child be given Norwegian citizenship status and all that comes with it….OR opting to return and maintain my US citizenship status. I pick. Let’s hold an eBay auction on legal citizenship status….best offer wins.
Or imagine the silly notion that I come to the US, 6 months pregnant, and go into labor–have the child. Now imagine this fine upstanding nation saying to the mother, sorry, the child is American and stays as its under our jurisdiction. Equally silly. Boy would that raise eyebrows and ire. Child stays, parents go. That’d be interesting.
I think it’s all theater. Of course this all was part and parcel with the immigration surge intentionally put upon us under the Biden Administration, this aspect being a tiny piece so long as illegal immigration is contained.
Seems we’ve lost our minds but hey, we couldn’t define a woman, argued to mutilate children, tried to tell everyone the border was closed, pretended that Fauci and his ilk had nothing to do with gain of function/covid and were certain the border patrollers were whipping folks torturously via horseback.
When folks, including justices, get as literal as literal can get, it runs counter to the IRS approach where, despite tax laws being more plainly written than 1+1=2, they opt to reinterpret clear language differently to their advantage.
What the President seeks legislatively is his prerogative, I wouldn’t call it wrong. What would stand up to judicial or parliamentarian scrutiny is another matter. Might be a waste of time, might not. Might actually get momentum towards what could be our first amendment in quite some time. Term limits could be another. Aspects of the SAVE act another. There are lots of popular things that could move forward as amendments but oddly no one tries. Hell Congress hardly passes ANY legislation which leads to this cycle of executive action and judicial review and the deep state of bureaucratic regulation masquerading as law. Arguably the 8%-approval-rating-Congress’s complete rejection of their job is at the core of many of our problems.
Can I get a ticket to MPO45v2’s exit strategy?
Now this is schizobabble!
You need to take a walk outside without any electronics
Yes….fresh air, no devices!
I’m not worried about Chinese anchor babies. The ones whose moms arrive by rubber raft are more of a problem.
You’re such a Rubberist.
Why do you have a problem with rubber rafts? What did they ever do to you?
What’s your problem man?
It’s a sad day in our County’s history,
When the Supreme court rules, that even
Our enemies can have babies birthed on
American soil, automatically become US citizens. $850 Billion was spent last year,
Helping illegals & that includes their newborn babies.
We the legal US citizens are getting robbed.
Yes, too bad they didn’t write a brand-new amendment and ratify it from the bench.
I’m sorry you’re bemoaning this moment in your lifetime. It’s been like this for over a hundred years. Literally, nothing has changed today.
The only sad day is that a narcissist & pedophile didn’t get his way. I’m ok with that.
Now if there is something that you feel still needs to be done, it’s going to require a partisan solution. I don’t see that happening under this administration under any circumstances short of his impeachment.
“Our enemies” – regular subhumans, eh?
This could play out extremely well for the Democrats, if the Democrats can get their shit together.
Trump is going to make this his battle cry for the midterm elections. No one is going to listen.
Trump losing on many issues
How about if we limit birthright citizenship ONLY to citizens of other countries that also offer it?
Or how about we (Americans) get FREE citizenship from any country we give money handouts too. That includes FULL voting rights (hint…hint….Israel).
Antisemite!
Are you Jewish? You can get citizenship in Israel then.
Are you Japanese? Similar issue I do believe… you can gain citizenship eventually if approved.
Your only choice is a constitutional amendment. Everything else is just hot air.
So pretty much all of North and South America. The places from which the USA seems to be mostly complaining about. 😂
So feel free to go have a baby in Venezuela and get your citizenship.
https://www.kcra.com/article/birthright-citizenship-map-supreme-court/71781993
It seems that many people in the USA don’t agree with their own much worshiped constitution on this one. If you don’t like the policy then advocate to change the constitution. There are plenty of broken bits in there.
It’s incredibly difficult to change the Constitution. Shouldn’t be so difficult!
But in 20 years or so, when the AI’s take over, the Constitution will be trashed, replaced by the rule of AI logic.
So ALL of Latin America?
Trump is right of course. This is a huge victory for the Chinese, who have been spreading into whatever territory they can reach for all of recorded history. Spreading and destroying other races is much more effective than having a military empire, as Rome did and as the U.S.A. has done.
So you are saying Trump isn’t securing the border and allowing Chinese to come into the country. Is Trump outing himself as a total failure on Chinese immigration?
Well cheer up, it’s only 600,000. I wonder how many babies 600k can make?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/trump-600000-chinese-students-conversative-backlash-rcna227246
And you don’t think the Western Europeans haven’t been doing the exact same thing? Western Europeans have made a specialty of colonizing and oppressing and even exterminating other countries and civilizations.
Do you think the Romans were saints?
Don’t forget the Crusades.
But yeah, let’s blame it on the Chinese.
You forgot to blame it on Obama.
It was Obama/Biden/Biden/Harris get the lies straight.
Per 100,000 residents, China has one of lowest emigrant numbers. Lower than that of the United States.
If the Chinese could do in America what they have accomplished in China in the last thirty or forty years I welcome them. Maybe they would save us from the rapid slide into the third world status that we are on.
You are an embarassment. Stop talking out of your REAR….