Supreme Court blocks birthright citizenship order

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. Barbara that President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, issued on his first day back in office, was unconstitutional.

The EO sought to limit automatic birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment for children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the US illegally or here on temporary visas.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined far-left justices and two Trump-appointed justices, Cavanaugh and Barrett, to strike down the executive order.

The ruling reaffirmed that virtually all children born on U.S. soil are citizens, citing the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...”

Although the ruling was specific to the Executive Order, it sets us on a course that will only serve to encourage additional illegal entries, such as "birth tourism."

Nearly two-thirds of households headed by illegals are on some form of welfare, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, costing taxpayers more than $150 billion every year, as reported by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Established Exceptions to Birthright Citizenship

The 14th Amendment and common law have long recognized narrow exceptions where a child born on U.S. soil is not considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States:

Children of foreign diplomats: Diplomats enjoy immunity and are not fully subject to U.S. laws.
Children of invading or occupying enemy forces: They owe allegiance to a hostile power.

These exceptions underscore that "jurisdiction" involves full allegiance and subjection to U.S. authority, not mere physical presence.

Justice Clarence Thomas’s Dissent: Original Meaning and Limits

In a lengthy 91-page dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Clarence Thomas sharply criticized the majority for expanding the Citizenship Clause beyond its original understanding.

Thomas argued the Clause was primarily designed to secure citizenship for freed slaves after the Civil War, those born and domiciled in the U.S. with no other homeland or foreign allegiance.

Key excerpts from Justice Thomas’s dissent:

“The Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race. Neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States.”
“The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens. In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.”

He emphasized that the framers focused on allegiance and domicile, not automatic citizenship for those whose parents lacked full consent to be here or owed primary allegiance to a foreign power.

Original Intent of the 14th Amendment (1868) and the path forward

The drafters in 1868 operated without modern federal immigration controls.

Legislative history shows the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase excluded those under foreign powers (diplomats, invaders) or sovereign tribal nations.

Many argue Congress retains authority to legislate clarifications excluding children of illegal aliens, treating unlawful entry as inconsistent with full jurisdiction, while honoring the amendment’s core purpose.

The Supreme Court’s ruling blocks executive action but does not rule out congressional action.

Lawmakers can now draw on the 1868 debates, historical exceptions for “invaders,” and Justice Thomas’s analysis of domicile and allegiance to enact targeted reforms.

This would address policy concerns over incentives for illegal immigration without a constitutional amendment.

President Trump got the conversation started, now the Republican Congress has an obligation to act and protect our sovereignty.

Thomas’ dissent provides a strong originalist foundation for legislative efforts to restore the intended limits on birthright citizenship.

The fight now moves to Congress.

Let's see if the GOP has the backbone to right this clear wrong.

12 ways New Jersey is making it harder for ICE to operate

With 12,000 additional officers, Immigration and Customs Enforcement wants to ramp up detention efforts this year. In New Jersey, proposed measures have been rolled out at the local, county, state and federal levels. Here's a look at what supporters have proposed as safeguards against unconstitutional actions — and what critics call hindrances to immigration enforcement.

Gallery Credit: Erin Vogt

The post above reflects the thoughts and observations of New Jersey 101.5 talk show host Bill Spadea. Any opinions expressed are Bill's own.

Report a correction 👈